Mr. SUMNER. Mr. President, I begin by expressing my acknowledgments to the Senfrom Maine, who yields the floorto me toda and also my sincere regret that anything should interfere with the opening of this debate by him. It is his right, and I enter upon it now only by his indulgence. I am not insensible to the responsibility which I assume in setting myself against a proposition already adopted in the other House, and having the recommendation of a committee to which the country looks with such just expectation, and to which, let me say, I look with so much trust. But after careful reflection, I do not feel that I can do otherwise. Knowing, as I do, the eminent character of the committee, its intelligence, its patriotism, and the moral instincts by which it is moved. I am at a loss to understan the origin of a proposition which seems to me nothing else than another Compromise of Human Rights, as if the country had not already paid enough in coatly treasure and more costly blood for such compromises in the past. I had he edthat the day of compromise with wrong ha passed for ever. Ample experience shows that it is the least practical mode of settling questions involving moral principles. A moral principle cannot be compromised. Here are the words of the amendment: Provided, That whenever the elective franchise shall be denied or abridged on account of race or color. all persons therein of such race or color shall be excluded from the basisof representation. I may be mistaken, sir, but I think it difficultto read this proposition without being pain fully impressed by the discord and defilement which it will introduce into the constitution, having among its specific objects the guarantee of a RFG. The discord is apurent on the face. The defilement is none t 12 less a parent. Go back, if you please, to the adoption of the constitution, and you will gratefully acknowledge that the finest saying of the times was when Madison, evidently inspired by the DeclarIndep, and determined to keep the constitution in harmony with it, insisted in wellknownwords, that “ it was wnoxo to admit in the Constitution the idea of property in man.” Of all that has come to us ffom that historic Convention, where Washington sat as President, and Frank lin and Hamilton sat as members, there is nothing having so much ofimperishable charm. It was wrong to admit in the constitution the idea that man could hold property in man. Accordingly, in this spirit the constitution was framed is odensive idea was not admitted. The text at least was kept blameless and now, after generations have passed, surrounded by the light of Christian truth and in the very blaze of Human Freedom, it is proposed toadmit in the constitution the twin idea of Inequality in Rights, and thus openly set at nsught the 1st principles of the DeclarIndep and the guarantee of a republican government itself, while you blot out a whole race politically. For some time we have been carefully expunging from the statutebook the word “white, ” and now it is proposed to insert in the constitution itself a distinction of color. An amendment, according to the dictionaries, is “ an improvement”“a change for the better.” Surely the present reposition is an amendment which like the gencrali goes backward. such is its appearance when you regard it merely in its form, without penetrating its substance; but here it is none the less offensive. The case is plain. There are among us 4 million citizens, now robbed of all share in the government of their couutr, while at the same time they are taxed accoring to their means, directly and indirectl, for the support of the Government. Nobody can question this statement and this bareface tyranny of taxation without representation it is now proposed to recognize as not inconsistent with fundamental right and the guarantee of a republican government. Instead of blasting it you go for ward to embrace it as an element of political power. If, by this, you expect to induce the recc slavemaster to confer the right of suffrage without distinction of color, you will find the proposition a delusion and a snare. He will 50 no such thing. Even the bribe you offer will not tempt him. If on the other hand, y o u expect to accomplish a reduction of his political power, it is more than doubtful if you Will. succeed, while the means you employ are unworthy of our country. There are tricks and evasions possible, and the canning slavemaster will drive his coach and through your amendment stuffed with all his representatives. Should he cheat you in this matter, it will only be a proper return for the endeavor on your art to circumvent him at the expense of fellow citizens to whom you are bound by every obligation of public faith. I know not if others will see this uncertainty as I seeit; but there are 2 practical consequences having a direct influence on the times, which all must see as following at once from the adoption of the socalled amendment. In the 1st place, it will be a present renunciation of all power under the constitution to apply the reins y fora grievous wrong, when the remedy, even according to yourpwn recent example, is actually in your hands. You have already in this Chamber, only last Friday, decreed civil rights without distinction of color. Who can doubt, that by the same title you may decree political rights also, withoutdistinction of color? ut, having the power, it is your duty to exercise it. You cannot evade this duty without becoming partakers in the wrong, and this brings me to the 2nd practical consequence which must ensue from the adoption of this proposition. You will hand over wards and allies, through whom the Republic has been saved, and therefore our saviors, to the control of vindictive enemies, to be taxed and governed without their consent; and this you will do for a consideration “nominated in the bond, ” by virtue of which men may do a great wrong, provided they will submit as a quid proquo to a proportionate abridgment of political power. he does not admire the Eng ish patriot who once said that he would give his ife to serve his country, but he would not do a mean thing to save it. I hope we may act in this spirit. Above all do not copy the example of Pontius Pilate, who surrendered the Saviour of the World, in whom he found no fault at all, tobe scourged and crucified, while he set at lar Barabbas, of whom the gospel says in simp e words, “Now Bambbas was a robber.” f I speak with a sincere deference for those val ued friends from whom I differ: but I submit that the time has come atlast when we should deal directly and not indirectly with the great question before usgund when all compromise of Human Rights should cease, and especially there should be no thought of a 3headed compromise, which, after degrading the constitution, reuounce s a beneficent power essen tial to the safety of the Republic, and, lastly, borrowing an example from Pontius Pilate, turns over a whole race to sacrifice. These objections I now present briefly on the thresh old, without argument, and I advance to the main question which must dominate this whole debate. By way of introduction I send to the Chair a counterproposition, which I desire to have read.