Mr. WILSON. To the original proposition now pending, that will cut down the representation of SCarolina in the HoRep if she continues to deny suffrago to them; and why? They would say, “These men who represent SCarolina in Congress are not our friends; they are not men who advocate our rights or support our rights; their voices and their votes are given against us; therefore if the deny to us the privilege of voting we hail an welcome an amendment that abs 1 cut down their representation, and put a penalty on them for their denial of suffrage to us." I say these colored men would welcome it; and I say further, that if that amendment was incorporated into your Constitution, men in South arolina and other States would at once begin to advocate the enfranchisement of the black men. I have conversed with a great many leading southerners on this subject, and I have ct to meet the 1st man who does not admit that if it was an achieved fact if it was in the Constitution the practical effect would be that the would have suffmge to the colored men; and they would give it. entire, not dependent upon anything. It would come. come by their advocacy, come by tlmir speech, come by their votes, come by their lifting up the public sentiment and instructing it in their States to a height that would comrehcnd not only their own ride, ambltlOfl,flll( interest and feelings, butt e rights of the poor black men; and when i it was carried the black men would nun ch With i them, shoulder to shoulder, to the ballot box, and give their votes for the count that enfranchised them, and for the men who advocated and maintained their rights and interests. Sir, it is for that reason that I support this, and for this reason besides, that if you at that question to the people of Kansas, of Pennsylvania, of Indiana, NewYork, or any of the NewEngland States, I should like to meet the man and like to see any man in the Senate or elsewhere go before that people and oppose it. It would go like a prairie fire, sweeping every thin before it, for there is dee down in the minds of the men who savedt O country in the field, and of the people generally, a feeling that we at any rate are man for man equal to the men in the rebel States, and will not permit a settlement of thisquestion making one rebel in SCarolina, ississippi, or ouis iaua, the equal of 2 loyal soldiers in Indiana, I111 Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kansas, or anywhere e se. Sir, this original amendment would have no prejudices to encounter in the loyal States. It would have no prejudices against negro suffrage to encounter, no disputes about power. It is lain upon its face, a clear declaration that tie Constitution shall stand as it is in rerd to the basis of representation; but if the States exclude any class of men on account of race or color, they shall pay the penalty of diminishing their basis of representation and their power; and it would carry the people as no other question that has been propounded from your chair, sir, for the last 4 years carried them; stronger than the antislavery constitutional amendment itself. There is no doubt about that. Pass the amendment today and the Legislatures that are now in session in the loyal States will adopt it. If we had passed it 3 weeks ago, 20 States would already have adopted it. Either of the other amendments the one of the Senfrom Wisconsin to base representation on legal voters, or the one of the Senfrom Missouriforbidding any distinctions on account of color or race would have to encounter in several States debate, resistance, opposition. This amendment would sweep over the loyal States with the resistless force of a squadron of Sheriidans cavalry in the valleys of the Shenandoa.