Mr. MORRILL of Maine addressed the Senate in support of the JtResolution. [His remarks wdl e publislied in the Appendix.] Speech entitled Apportionment of Representation. March 8, 1866. The senatehaving under consideration the JtResolution (H.R.No. 51) proposing to amend the Constitution of the U.S.R. MORRILL said: Mr. President: I rise to discuss one or two topics connected with this question, and I shall not occupy much of the time of the Senate. That it is important is evidenced from the expression of sentiment in the Senate and in the country. To show, independent of this, that it is important, it only needs to be stated that it proposes to change the basis of representation in the popular branch of the national congress. Its importance is rendered, I was about to say painfu ly, significant by the discussions which have obtained upon this floor in the last few weeks, during which it has occupied the attention of the Senate. It is said to be unnecessary, unimportant, and by one class of Senators that it is unust to the States, particularly the States which have so recently been in rebellion. It is said, on the other hand, by those who take a different view of the subject, that it is particularly unjust to the freedmen, whom it is the duty of the nation to protect and provide for. It was said ester day that we violate a great principle of meri can low and American liberty in the nttern tto pass it; that it is fundamentally wrong an unjust to a defensclcssmnd unprotected race, the wards and allies of the nation, whose dutyit is to have t liem protection. this plain that between these cross purposes, if persisted in, the measure is to come to nau lit. My purpose, so far as I have any object, on so far as have any method in the treatment of the subject today, will be to show that neither of these propositions is just. It is not unjust to the States recently in rebellion; it does not, us is supposed, violate a great fundamental principle of American representative law; and en the other hand, it does not violate, as is so posed, the principles of popular liberty in the person of this dependent race. Upon the contrary, I shall maintain affirmatively that its tendency is in the direction of opular liberty. Although I shall not pretend that it is an ade quate measure, and that it deals out full and ample justice to this feeble race, who I believe all must agree it is the high duty of the nation to protect and defend yet I shall maintain that its tendency is in that direction, and that those who have faith in it, those who would do what they can, now that they cannot do all they would, may accept it, and ought to accept it. Sir, what is the issue precisely? It is said it is to change the great fundamental basis of representation on teone side. I do not quite a ree to that. Rather, I maintain that it is to adjust the nation to the great events of the war. Those who have been at all watchful of the passing events of the last 5 years doubtless recognize some changes in the condition of the country. The great civilWar through which the nation has passed in its march, and in the sweep of its events, has worked radical changes in public affairs. Sir, it has worked among other things a fundamental change in the basis of representation provided for in your Constitution. That change renders this proposition necessary. In the Constitution of the U.S. representation in the popular branch of Congress was based upon “ the whole number of free persons, incluing those bound to service for a term of ears, and, excluding Indians not taxed, 3 fths of all other persons.” One of the great changes which have event uated from this war is an amendment of our Constitution which forever sweeps away from the Constitution of the U.S. the “other craoiis”mentioned in the Constitution, an which constitute a portion of the basis of representation. Slavery and involuntary servitude have been swept from the ale of the Constitution; and thus has change the fundamental basis of representation in the popular branch of Congress. How is the fact, lihw ever? Notwithstanding this radical change, the fact is that today Representatives from States are demanding admission into the lower branch of Congress based upon the system of slavery, which is among the things that were; which is altogether in the past. The question is presented shall the American Congress admit into ils councils some 30 Representatives in the lower branch of Congress based upon a provision of the Constitution now ren ered obsolete lthe changes to which I have alluded? Why, {In President, to do that would be to bringagain into your presence the institution of slavery itself. It would be to say that, not withstanding events that have transpired, you still recognize its existence as a political power in the nation. Today, 30 Representatives, in theory and in fact, demand admission into the lower House of Congress based entirely upon the representative system as originally provided for by the Constitution of the U.S., ignoring all changes. To those who deny that an amendment to the Constitution is necessary I ask, how are you providing for this obvious change in the re re sentative basis? The provision of the constitution providing for representation based on 3/5ths of the “other persons" no longer exists. How shall equal and just representation be provided for? Some amendment is remdered absolutely necessary. unless the American Constitution is to give to the nation the expression of utterly contradictory sentiments, saying involuntary servitude no longer exists, in oneportion of it; in another bearin on its front, in marked contrast, that 3/5ths only of the other persons ” are to still constitute the basis of representation.