Mr. JOHNSON. As Istated to the Senate. it is mydpurpose to vote for the amendment suggests by the honorable member from NewHampshire. I propose to say but a word in reply to my friendfrom Pennsylvania. I understand him as objecting to that amendment and as objecting to any amendment the basis of representation upon the chgarneguinng that it will interfere with the freedom of the States. That is a proposition that I cannot well comprehend. In the Convention by which the Constitution was adopted, the manner in which representation was to be ascertained and taxation was to be levied was a subject of serious discussion; there were different opinions held by different members of that Convention, but nobody intimated that however the basis might be ascertained the effect would be to interfere with the freedom of the States. The only question was, what was the propermode of ascertainin the number of representatives and of apportioning taxation?They came to the co clusion that the properbasis for each was numbers. We are, or at least I am individually, of the opinion that the propermode of ascertaining it is the number of qualified voters. What is there in that that interferes with the freedom of the States more than the other? But the honorable member seems to suppose that because the Constitution when it was adopted established a different basis, the basis which is now in force, it interferes with the freedom of the States to change that basis. What was the amendment clause of the Constitution inserted for? I suppose the object of that clause was to give to the people of the U.S., acting in the way suggested by the clause to which I advert, the authority to change the Constitution from time to time. When the Constitution was adopted some of the States, the most of the States, had slaves, and they claimed as a constitutional right the authority to hold slaves; and it was contended upon this floor, I think by my friendfrom Del aware, [Miz SAULSBURY] by the honorable member from Kentucky, [Mr. DAVIS] that it would interfere very much with the li sedom of the States to take from the States the slaves that they had a right to hold under the express guarantees of the Constitution; but the Senate thought differently. They agreed to amend the Constitution so as to abolish slavery through out the U.S., and if my memory does not fail me, my friendfrom Pennsylvania voted for that amendment.