Mr. FARNSWORTH. I csire to occupy buta few moments of the time of this House in reference to this subject. We have learned by experience that it is necessary that whatever is put in the constitution, and whatever laws we make in reference to the rights of the men in the rebellious States, must be so hedged about with guards and protections, they must be so plain and so clear, that “the wayfaring man though a fool may not err therein, ” or else they will in some cunning manner devise a way of avoiding them. We adopted an amendment to, the constitution that slavery should not here after exist in this country except as a punishment for crime. Yet we find those States now reducing these men to slavery again as a punishment for crime, and declaring for every ittle pett offense the black man may commit that he shal be sold into bondage. So that even that constitutional provision which we made, and which was intended to knock the shackles off every man who was not guilty of crime in the U.S., is avoided and got around by these cunning rebels. Now, sir, it is necessary, it seems to me, that whatever constitutional provision we may make should be made clear, manifest, certain. If possible, we should make it enforce itself, so that by no cunningly devised scheme or shift can they nullify it. It seems to me that the resolution reported by the JtComReconstruction is not so clear as it ought to be; I am afraid that it will be worthless. Several points have been made, several reasons have congiven, among others the one suggested by the Gentfrom RhdIsland [Mr. JENCKES] and the Gentfrom Maine [Mr. BLAINE] in reference to the property qualification. So, too, a State may enact that a man shall not exercise the elective franchise except he can read and write, makin7 that law app y equally to the whites and blacks, and then may also enact that a black man shall not learn to read and write, exclude him from their schools, and make it a coal offense to instruct or to teach him, audt us prevent his qualifying to exercise the elective franchise according to the State law and they may do in regard to the elective franchise just what they are doing now in regard to slavery. They may provide that no man shall exercise the elective franchise who has been guilty of a crime; and then they may denounce these men as guilty of a crime for every little, imaginary, petty offense. l hey may declare that no man shall exercise the right of voting who has not a regular business or occupation by which he may obtain a livelihood, and then they may declare that the black man has no settled occupation and no business. It seems to me, therefore, necessary that we should, by some provision in this amendment, settle this beyond a peradventure, so that none of these shifts or (evices may defeat the purpose of the enactment. But, Mr. Speaker, there is another objection to this proposition, which lies deeper than those I have already mentioned; and while I do not say that I will not vote for this as the best thin that we can do under the circumstances, yetI do say that if I vote for it I shall do so very reluctantly and I protest here that I will not accept any such constitutional amendment as this as a substitute for that full measure of justice which it is our dut to mete out. I will not promise that hereatter I will not propose and vote for and advocate with whatever power. I possess a measure which will give to all the people of the States that which is their due. Sir, I will not admit that any State has the right to disfranchise a portion of its citizens; and if this proposition makes, expressly or by implication, any such admission, cannot vote for it. I know it is said that the States have exercised the right of restricting suffrage, and they do now in man of the northern States restrict it, and deny the right of voting to certain classes of citizens. Yet by no vote of mine shall there be incorporated in the constitution a provision which shall, even by implication, declare that a State may disfranchise any portion of its citizens on account of race or color. We have no right to give our countenance to any such injustice.al provisions in reference to representation which are based upon any other principle than that of the people of this couutr, who are the subjects otP government, have teright to vote and to be represented, are false in principle. such a measure may, perhaps, answer for a temporary exedieut, at it will not do as a fundamental to c to be embodied in the constitution for the people of this country to live by. I deny thata State has the right to disfranchise a majority, or even a minority of its citizens because of class or race and I say that that provision of the Constitution which makes it the duty of the General Government to “guaranty to every State in this Union a RFG" ought to be taiien into consideration by this Congress and enforced. Does a State that denies the elective franchise to 1/2 of its citizens possess a RFG? Vhere a large portion of the citizens of a Statethe men who are required to pay taxes and perform military duty, to contribute their money and their strengthin support of the Governmentare denie the elective franchise is that a RFG? i say that it is a libel upon republicanism; it is not a RFG; it is neither republican in form nor in substance. But, Mr. Speaker, it is said, and I suppose aid truly and it is a disgrace that we are obligedtoadmititthata constitutional amendment declaring that no State shall debar any portion of its citizens from the exercise of the elective franchise on account of color or race could not now receive the assent of the Legislatures of3/4ths of the States of this Union. Ifear that this is true. It may therefore be necessarythat we shOuld