PROCLAMATION ANNOUNCING ADOPTION OF

March 30, 1870.

Fifteenth

XV. AMENDMENT.

HAMILTON FISH,

SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

To all to whom these presents may come, greeting:

KNOW ye, that the Congress of the United States, on or about the twenty-seventh day of February, in the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty-nine, passed a resolution in the words and figures following, to wit:

"A RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two thirds of both Houses concurring), That the following article be proposed to the legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three fourths of said legislatures, shall be valid as part of the Constitution, namely:

"ARTICLE XV.

"SECTION 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

"SECTION 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

And, further, that it appears from official documents on file in amendment to this Department that the amendment to the Constitution of the the Constitu

tion ratified

by twentynine States.

New York withdraws.

United States, proposed as aforesaid, has been ratified by the legislatures of the States of North Carolina, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Maine, Louisiana, Michigan, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, New York, New Hampshire, Nevada, Vermont, Virginia, Alabama, Missouri, Mississippi, Ohio, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Nebraska, and Texas, in all twenty-nine States.

And, further, that the States whose legislatures have so ratified the said proposed amendment constitute three fourths of the whole number of States in the United States.

And, further, that it appears from an official document on file in this Department that the legislature of the State of New York has since passed resolutions claiming to withdraw the said ratification of the said amendment which had been made by the legislature of that State, and of which official notice had been filed in this Department.

Georgia rati

And, further, that it appears from an official document on file in this Department that the legislature of Georgia has by resolution fics. ratified the said proposed amendment:

Now, therefore, be it known that I, HAMILTON FISH, Secretary of State of the United States, by virtue and in pursuance of the second section of the act of Congress approved the twentieth day of April, in the year eighteen hundred and eighteen, entitled "An act to provide for the publication of the laws of the United States and for other purposes,” do hereby certify that the amendment aforesaid has become valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution of the United States.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the Department of State to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington, this thirtieth day of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sev[L. S.] enty, and of the Independence of the United States the ninety-fourth. HAMILTON FISH.

Amendment declared valid. 1818, ch. 80,

2.

Vol. iii. p. 439.

These citations are chiefly of cases subsequent to those cited in the "Annotated Constitution," ante, pp. 474–496.

4, Clause 1.

" I., 5,

Van Bracklin v. Tennessee, 117 U. S., 151; Chinese exclusion
case, 130 U. S., 581.

.U. S. v. Texas, 143 U. S., 621; Field v. Clark, 143 U. S., 649;
Fong Yue Ting v. U. S., 149 U. S., 698.

Ex parte Clark, 100 U. S., 399.

1.....Matter of Coy, 127 U. S., 731; U. S. v. Ballin, 144 U. S., 1. ..U. S. v. Ballin, 144 U. S., 1.

2.

6, 8,

1.

1.

3...

Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S., 168.

(Income tax cases) Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co.,
157 U. S., 429, idem, 158 U. S., 601.

Hyde v. Continental Trust Co., 157 U. S., 585; 158 U. S., 601.
.Kimmish v. Ball, 129 U. S., 217; Leidy v. Hardin, 135 U. S.,

78; Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U. S, 314; Brimmer v.
Rebman, 138 U. S., 78; Leeper v. Texas, 139 U. S., 462;
matter of Rahner, 140 U. S., 545; Pullman Palace Car.
Co. v. Pennsylvania, 141 U. S., 13; Crutcher v. Kentucky,
141 U. S., 47; Budd v. New York, 143 U. S., 517; Voights
v. Wright, 148 U. S., 62; Brennan v. Titusville, 153 U. S.,
289; Harmon v. Chicago, 147 U. S., 396; Brass v. Stoe-
ser, 153 U. S., 391; Ashley v. Ryan, 153 U. S., 436;
Luxton v. N. R. Bridge Co., 153 U. S., 525; Postal Tele-
graph Co. v. Charleston, 153 U. S., 692; Covington & Cin-
cinnati Bridge Co. v. Kentucky, 154 U. S., 204; matter of
Debs, 158 U. S., 563.

4.....Chay Yung v. Freeman, 92 U. S., 275; 'Chew Heong v. U. S., 112 U. S., 536; 1Yick Wo v. IIopkins, 118 U. S., 356; 1U. S. v. Yung Ah Lung, 124 U. S., 624; 'Chae Chan Ping v. U. S., 130 U. S., 581; 'Nishimura Ekin v. U. S., 142 U. S., 651; 'Fong Yue Ting v. U. S., 149 U. S., 698; 'Lee v. U. S., 150 U. S., 476.

7. ....Matter of Debs, 158 U. S., 563.

"17.....Gibbons v. District of Columbia, 116 U. S., 404; Stoutenburg v. Henrick, 129 U. S., 141; Bonson v. U. S., 146 U. S., 325; Shoemaker v. U. S., 147 U. S., 282.

2..... Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S., 371; ex parte Clark v. U. S, 106

U. S., 399; ex parte Curtis, 106 U. S., 371; U. S., v. Gale, 109 U. S., 65; ex parte Wilson, 114 U. S., 417; matter of Ayres, 123 U. S., 443; matter of Coy, 127 U. S., 731; U. S. v. Jung Ah Lung, 124 U. S., 621; matter of Shubuya Jugiro, 140 U. S., 291; Fong Yue Ting v. U. S., 149 U. S., 698.

Art. I., Sec. 9, Clause 3.....King v. Missouri, 107 U. S., 221; Hopt v. Utah, 110 U. S.,

II.,

" II.,

10,

1.

574.

4. . . . . (Income tax cases) Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co., 157
U. S., 429; idem, 158 U. S., 601; Hyde v. Continental
Trust Co., 157 U. S., 585; and 158 U. S., 601.
...Scotland County v. Hill, 140 U. S., 41; Essex Public Road
Board v. Skinkle, 140 U. S., 41; 3Stein v. B. Water Supply
Co., 141 U. S., 67; Morley v. Lake Shore, etc., Co., 146
U. S., 162; Hamilton Gas, etc., Co. v. Hamilton, 146 U.
S., 258; Schurz v. Cook, 148 U. S., 397; 3Bryant v. Board
of Education, 151 U. S., 639; Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U.
S., 377; N. Y., Lake Erie & W. R. R. v. Pennsylvania,

153 U. S., 628.

2... .Stone v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co., 116 U. S., 307.
2. ....McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S., 1.

10,

1,

แ

1

.Knote v. U. S., 95 U. S., 149.

.U. S. v. Rauscher, 119 U. S., 407; Baldwin v. Frank, 120 U. S., 678; Chinese exclusion cases, 130 U. S., 581; Shoemaker v. U. S., 147 U. S., 282.

III., Sec. 2, Clause 1. .U. S. v. Texas, 143 U. S., 621.

3..Callan v. Wilson, 127 U. S., 540; Nashville & Chattanooga Railway v. Alabama, 128 U. S., 96.

1.. Hanauer v. Doane, 12 Wall., 342; Carlisle v. U. S., 16 Wall., 147; Spratt v. U. S., 20 Wall., 459; Young v. U. S., 97 U. S., 39.

2.. Pike v. Russell, 94 U. S., 711; U. S. v. Dannington, 146 U. S., 338; Jenkins v. Collard, 145 U. S., 546.

Cole v. Cunningham, 133 U. S., 107.

( 2, Clause 2.. Mahne v. Justice, 127 U. S., 700; Lascelles v. Georgia, 148

"VI., Clause 2

Art. I...

"V..

U. S., 537.

.W. U. Tel. Co. v. Massachusetts, 125 U. S., 530; The Gulf,
C., & Santa Fé R. R. Co. v. Hefley, 158 U. S., 96.

AMENDMENTS.

..Eilenbecker v. Plymouth Co., 134 U. S., 31; matter of Rapier,

143 U. S., 110.

.Matter of Ross, 140 U. S., 453; New Orleans v. N. O. Water
Works Co., 142 U. S., 79; Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142
U. S., 547; Nishimura Ekin v. U. S., 142 U. S., 651;
Thomington v. Montgomery, 147 U. S., 490; Monongahela
Navigation Co. v. U. S., 148 U. S., 312; Paulsen v. Port-
land, 149 U. S., 30; Marchant v. Penn. R. R. Co., 153 U.
S., 380; Pittsburg C. C., etc., R. R. Co. v. Bachus, 154 U.

Art. VI..

"VII.

"XI....

"XIV., Sec. 5.

S., 421; Thompson v. U. S., 155 U. S., 268; Johnson v.
Sayre, 158 U. S., 107.

. Callan v. Wilson, 127 U. S., 540.

.Scott v. Neely, 140 U. S., 106; Cates v. Allen, 147 U. S., 451.
Lincoln County v. Laning, 133 U. S., 529; Ilaws v. Louisi-

ana, 134 U. S., 1; Pennoyer v. McConnaughy, 140 U. S,
1; Reagan v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co., 154 U. S., 362.
McMillan v. Anderson, 95 U. S., 37; Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.
S., 714; Railroad Company v. Richmond, 96 U. S., 700;
Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S., 339; Missouri v.
Lewis, 101 U. S., 22; Langford v. U. S., 101 U. S., 141;
U. S. v. Harris, 106 U. S., 629; Pace v. Alabama, 106 U.
S., 583; Bush v. Kentucky, 107 U. S., 110; Gross v. The
U. S. Mortgage Co., 108 U. S., 477; civil rights cases,
109 U. S., 3; Louisiana v. New Orleans, 109 U. S., 285;
Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S., 516; Hager v. Reclama-
tion District, 111 U. S., 701; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S.,
94; Foster v. Kansas, 112 U. S., 201; Head v. Amoskeag
M'f'g Co., 113 U. S., 9; Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S., 27;
Provident Institution v. Jersey City, 113 U. S., 506; Soon
King v. Crowley, 113 U. S., 703; Wurts v. Hoagland, 114
U. S., 606; Kentucky R. R. tax cases, 115 U. S., 321;
Campbell v. Holt, 115 U. S., 620; Presser v. Illinois, 116
U. S., 252; Missouri Pacific R. R. Co. v. Hurnes, 116 U.
S., 512; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 128 U. S., 356; Santa Clara
County v. Southern Pacific R R., 118 U. S., 394; Phila-
delphia Fire Association v. New York, 119 U. S., 110;
Schmidt v. Cobb, 119 U. S., 286; Hayes v. Missouri, 120
U. S., 68; Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S., 623; Pembina
Mining Co. v Pennsylvania, 125 U. S., 181; Spencer v.
Merchant, 125 U. S., 345; Dow v. Beidelman, 125 U. S.,
680; Ro Bards v. Lamb, 127 U. S., 58; Missouri Pacific
Railway Co. v. Mackey, 127 U. S., 205 and 210; Powell v.
Pennsylvania, 127 U. S., 678; Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U. S.,
1; Nashville & Chattanooga Railway v. Alabama, 128 U.
S., 96; Walstein v. Nevin, 128 U. S., 578; Minneapolis &
St. Louis Railway v. Beckwith, 128 U. S., 26; Dente v.
West Virginia, 129 U. S., 114; Freeland v. Williams, 131
U. S, 405; Eilenbecker v. Plymouth County, 134 U. S.,
31;
Bell Gap Railroad Co. v. Pennsylvania, 134 U.
S, 232; In re Converse, 137 U. S., 624; Caldwell v.
Texas, 137 U. S., 692; Leeper v. Texas, 139 U. S., 462;
In re Manning, 139 U. S, 504; Natal v. Louisiana, 139 U.
S., 621; Lent v. Tillson, 140 U. S., 316; Waukauna Wa-
ter Power Co. v. Green Bay, etc., 142 U. S., 254; Jen-
nings v. Coal Ridge Coal Co., 147 U. S., 147; Charlotte,
Augusta & Columbia Railroad Co. v. Gibbes, 142 U. S.,
386; Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S., 547; New
York v. Squires, 145 U. S., 175; Morley v. Lake Shore &
Michigan Southern Railway Co., 146 U. S., 162; Hallinger