Mr. MORRILL. I have said distinctly on a former occasion that I did not; and therefore I am not to be put in the attitude of so arguing. The Senator does not believe that; he is not here urging a principle in which he believes. What is he doing? Trying to do mischief; trying to make somebody believe he is sincere. That is labor lost here. It will not succeed of course. Now, what is his position? “I do not believe in woman suffrage, and do not believe in negro suffrage, but if you will insist upon male negro suffrage I will insist upon woman negro suffrage.” That is his position exactly, “If you insist that the male negro shall vote I insist the female shall.” That is his attitude, nothing more nor less. Mr. President, I do not think there is much force in the position. He has not offered an argument on the subject. He has read from a paper. He has introduced here the discourse of some ladies in some section of the country upon what they esteem to be their own rights, in illustration; that is all; not as argument; he does not offer it as an argument, but to illustrate his theme and to put us in an attitude, as he supposes, of embarrassment on that subject. He has read papers which are altogether foreign from his view of this subject, and which he for a moment will not indorse, He offers these as an illustration with a view of illustrating his side of the question, and particularly with a view of embarrassing this nleasure. I think that is all there is in the Senator's proposition, and Iso leave it. But while I am up I will advert, to save calling the attention of the Senate to it again, to that part of his argument yesterday which was addressed to the amendment proposed to the bill whereby those who had been engaged in rebellion were to be restricted in this right. My honorable friend is an astute and able and critical lawyer, and when he talks law here he is bound to talk as a lawyer; he ought to talk as a lawyer; but he will allow me to say that all his talk on that subject was not lawyer like; he did not talk in the language of the law, he did not talk on the principles of the law, the fundamental, cardinal principles of the law; he did not talk even the ordinary principles common to the very tyros of the law. He undertook to convince the senate that you could not do this thing because it would be expostfacto, absolutely against the Constitution of the U.S., as it would inflict a punishment on the man who was deprived of the exercise of the right to vote. On what principle, allow me to ask the honorable Senator, would that be true?