Mr. FOSTER. That, however, is not end was not the proposition before the Senate. I was sorry also that the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts [Mr. WILSoN] expressed an opinion similar to the opinion expressed by the Senfrom Pennsylvania and the Senfrom Delaware in regard to reading and writing being a qualification for a voter. The honorable Senfrom Pennsylvania, from the manner in which he treats this subject, I should think was now fresh from his reading of “Much Ado about Nothing, ” and was quoting Mr. Justice Dogberry, who, said I believe the honorable Senator will correct me if I misquote, for he is very fresh in his readings of the English and other classics “to be a wellfavored man is the gift of fortune, but to read and write comes by nature.” Like that very high authority, Mr. Justice Dogberry, the honorable Senfrom Pennsylvania and the honorable Senfrom Delaware, and i am sorry to include in the same category the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts, seem in clined to say “away with writing and reading till there is need of such vanity.” Now, I agree that to be able simply to read and to write does not prove that a man has either the intellectual or moral qualifications necessary for a voter in the U.S. But, sir, when I agree to that I must be permitted to lay it down as a proposition that the man who cannot read and who cannot write is in all human probability unqualified to perform the duties of an elector. The avenue to all the knowledge necessary to qualify one for that duty seems, under those circumstances, to be absolutely closed to him. It is possible, I agree, that a man who can neither read nor write may have sufficient intelligence to cast a vote; but such a case is exceptional; the great mass of mankind who can neither read nor write surely have not that intelligence which voters in this country ought to have and must have if our institutions are to be upheld and perpetuated. The honorable Senfrom Pennsylvania is mistaken in supposing that this idea comes from what he calls, perhaps correctly, the “hub of the universe, ” Massachusetts. Massachusetts is certainly a most distinguished and renowned State; her people are intelligent and learned, but they did not discover the propriety or necessity of establishing as a test in their constitution the ability to read and write as a necessary qualification for their electors. Several years before Massachusetts, incorporated such an article in her constitution the State of Connecticut had made reading a necessary test for the qualification of voters in that State. This was not in the ancient days which the Senfrom Pennsylvania might take pleas ure in characterizing as the “blue law” times, but at a later period, after our people had been enlightened by the intelligence of Pennsylvania. In the year 1855 the people of Connecticut adopted as an amendment to their constitution in substance the following: “No person who cannot read any article of this constitution or any section of the laws of this State shall be admitted as an elector.” Certainly, if I misrepresented The State of Massachusetts copied that in substance 2 years after, in the year 1857. And, sir, I submit to the honorable Senators from Pennsylvania and Delaware and Massachusetts that it is in very bad taste to sneer at reading and writing as qualifications for voters. I was astonished to hear the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts express the opinions he did on that subject. I cannot but think that the great majority of the intelligent and most of the people of Massachusetts are highly intelligent the great majority of the people of Massachusetts if the question were put to them today would say a man should not vote in that State who cannot read and write. The State of Connecticut 1st adopted a constitution, having till that time lived under the charter of King Charles, in the year 1818. One of the qualifications of an elector in that constitution was that he should be a man of good moral character. There were various other qualifications. In 1845 an amendment was adopted enabling all white males 21 years of age and of good moral character to become electors. In Connecticut we have always made the possession of a good moral character a necessary qualification for an elector, and in 1855, as I have before stated, we added to that qualification, or rather we denied the privilege of an elector to any person who. if thereafter apply who could not read any article of the constitution or any section of the statutes of the State. Mr. President, I do not believe that that was going backward in human progress; on the contrary I believe it was going forward, and I believe the idea of admitting men to the elective franchise who can neither read nor write is going backward and downward. We all agree at least I hear no one bold enough to deny it that intelligence and morality are at the basis of free institutions. On intelli gence and morality, under God,all free goveruments, all free institutions must rest. Why, then, are not intelligence and morality necessary attributes in those whom we admit to exercise and enjoy the elective franchise? Why sneer at reading and writing when almost all the knowledge which the world has thus far accumulated can be acquired now only bying read I mean substantially all, of course not literally and absolutely. The knowledge of the past comes to us substantially through history, and history comes to us which are through the volumes stored in our libraries, and we acquire from them the wisdom of past ages. Wow, where a man, no matter from what cause. cannot thus become acquainted, through books, by reading, with the wisdom of past ages, nor with the events and occurrences of the day, I say, he is not and cannot be an intelligent, and is not therefore a safe voter. I was astonished also to hear the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts say that from 1789 to the present time we had suffered little from ignorance. The assertion was not indeed made, but the idea was pretty clearly expressed, that the evils we had encountered were rather charge able to the intelligence of the people, that the late rebellion had been caused by intelligent, acute. well informed men, and that the ignorant were disposed to support the flag of the Union and stand by the Government. I certainly differ from that honorable Senator most widely on that proposition. It is true that many of the men who were active in inaugurating this rebellion were men of intelligence, men of culture, men of education, but most of them were ignorant of the real condition of this country, lamentably ignorant of the free States, ignorant of the stuff that the men inhabiting the free States were made of, and of the temper and capacity of those men to ignroersaisnt t aggression. Had they not been thus they never would have incited this rebellion., Further than that, the great mass of one southern people who joined in the rebel Yoon were not thus intelligent and educated; they were ignorant, grossly ignorant. The from the southern states, who made up the bulk of the armies in the field, were ignorant, unlettered men; many of them could neither read nor write. These were the men who furnished the support, the strength of the rebellion, the men who fought its battles, without whom it could not have lasted 6 months. Ignorance was the cause of the rebellion; ignorance sustained it; intelligence, morality, and patriotism overcame it. The honorable Senator would make up an issue between intelligence on the one side, and perhaps equal or greater intelligence on the other. That was not the true condition. It was, I repeat it, an issue between ignorance, ignorant men led on by men of disappointed ambition, wily dem agogues, evil designing men, who can always impose upon the ignorant and lead them where they list, and true and loyal intelligent men. Thank God, the true and patriotic men of the country were numerous enough and strong enough to overcome in the struggle; but if reading and writing had not been more common in the northern and free States than in the southern States the rebellion would have triumphed, and we should not be sitting here today. Mr. President would not occupy that chair, no Senator here would occupy a seat in this Chamber today if reading and writing had not been more universal through the northern and free States than in the southern and slave States. The ablest and most popular northern leaders could never have set on foot such a rebellion as this in the free States because the people were too intelligent to be thus imposed upon. I repeat it, I was astonished to hear the i. orable Senfrom Massachusetts intimate that ignorance had done little or no harm in this country. Ignorance connected with its handmaid, or rather with its twin sister depravity, has done all the harm; where you find ignorance you find depravity almost universally. Now, sir, it must not be understood that I am not in favor of enlarged suffrage. I am. lay it down as a proposition that the broader you can with omake the basis of suffrage, the more stable, the more firm will be the foundation of your Government, and for the most obvious reasons. if I am asked, “Would you let every person vote?” I reply, “Yes, I would let every person vote who is fit to vote.” I voted yesterday to allow what is called female suffrage, not be cause, as I think, the great mass of the women of this country desire to vote. Iknow, on the contrary, that within the circle of my acquaintance and observation the great mass of them do not desire to vote; but that is not the question. I should not be disposed to grant to a class of persons the right to vote simply because they desired it. The desire to do a thing or to occupy a position, however strong that desire may be, is not always the best evidence of the necessary qualifications. We may desire to do many things for which we are unfit, and we may be unwilling to perform many duties for oil. we are eminently fit. I voted for female suffrage because in principle I can see no reason for denying the right to every person who is fit to vote. Of course it makes a Government strong to enlarge the basis of suffrage as far as you can with safety, for you thus bring every person, so to speak, into the Government; it makes every person an integral part of the Government; every person feels that to some extent it is his Government, and his interest and his duty will therefore be to protect, support, defend the Government, because it is his, and because he is a constituent part of it. such a Government will have elements of strength and perpetuity which no other Government on the earth can have. A Government which does not thus grant the elective franchise to all its people who are fit to exercise the right cannot be so strong as one which does. The persons who are left out make an element of weakness. They may not be hostile to the Government, but in time of emergency and great peril it would, in my apprehension, be safer to subtract this power from the sum total of the power of o the body than it would be to add it to that sum total. But, Mr. President, while I am thus in favor of this enlarged suffrage without reference to race or color or sex, I am not in favor of allowing ignorant, grossly ignorant men, the mass of whom because of their ignorance will also be criminal, to exercise the right of suffrage. I believe it cannot be done with safety. It is not strange, sir, that there should be diverse opinions on this subject. While some argue for extending this privilege to all classes, all sexes, all colors, making perhaps the at tainment of a certain age the only qualification, others would restrict it to the male sex of one race, others would restrict it with certain qualifications of intelligence and morals. I am one of those who, while I go for the largest extension, would have a qualification of intelligence and morals, and have that an essential qualification, and I do not believe that the interests of society will be safe unless you apply some test as a qualification for your voters. I would ask the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts, whether if he were a member of the State Legislature "at home, as he often has been, he would vote for a Senator in this body who could neither read nor write. He may say that such a contingency is not probable. } agree that it is not, but it is possible. It is possible that such a man may be a candidate for the Senate from the State of Massachusetts; that is, it would be possible if it were not for the qualification she requires. He is for abolishing the qualification; and in that state of things a man might be a candidate for the Senate from Massachusetts who could neither read nor write. I must take leave to presume, in the absence of the honorable senator's denying the assertion, that he would not vote for a man to represent his State in this body who could neither read nor write. I take iIt have his assent to that proposition. I take it he would not wote in this body to confirm a man as a judge or as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who could neither read nor write. trust I may assume that no member of this body, not even the honorable Senfrom Pennsylvania, or the honorable Senfrom Delaware, would vote to confirm a man as a judge or as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who could neither read nor write. I trust not. I believe not. And why not? Because they would say it is impossible that a man who can neither read nor write should be qualified to discharge his duties in this body or his duties on the bench of the Supreme Court. There would I take it be great unanimity of Jpinion on that question. If that be granted, I would ask these same gentlemen whether they would vote to constitute a tribunal, if there were such a one known to our Constitution, or if such a one should be created, higher than the Supreme Court, higher than the Senate, higher than Congress whose duty it should be to revise the proceedings of the Supreme Court, the proceedings of Congress, and correct whatever errors they found in the administration of those 2 tribunals. Of course they would say that they would not vote for men to sit in that tribunal who could neither read nor write, for surely they would not call upon men who could neither read nor write to correct the errors of men who could read and write, and to fill whose places they would not permit men who could not read and write to sit. Now, Mr. President, I understand all these gentlemen to be prepared to vote to allow men who can neither read nor write to vote at the ballot boxes. And what are the ballot boxes, and who are the men who come forward to deposit their ballots in the ballot boxes? The are the people of this country to whom all questions must ultimately go for examination and correction. Every act of Congress may under certain circumstances come before the Supreme Court for construction as to its constitutionality. The Supreme Court, if they set it aside on the ground of its unconstitutionality in one sense annul the law; but all of us of course are subject at all times to error. The Senate and every tribunal is fallible; and the Supreme Court being fallible, are liable to make mistakes, and where are their mistakes corrected? They are corrected at the ballot box and they can be corrected only at the ballot box; not directly I agree: a decision of the Supreme Court is not directly reversed at the ballot box. I do not claim that; but if the Supreme Court make a decision which the people of this country, a majority, think to be unsound and wrong they will take a course which will reverse that decision. It will take some time to do it, but it will certainly be done. If an act of Congress perfectly constitutional is in the judgment of the people an unwise and impolitic and injurious law the people will take measures at a very early day to have that law repealed, and it will be done. It will be done through the people acting at the ballot boxes. They correct the mistakes which we make and which Congress makes and which the Supreme Court makes. The electors at the ballot boxes are the grand court of errors for the country. Now, sir, these Senators propose to allow men who cannot read and write to correct our mistakes, to become members of this high court of errors. It seems to me I confess little short of an absurdity to say that while men onot to sit in Congress, ought not to sit in the Supreme Court who can neither read nor write, we will put it in the power of men who can neither read nor write to correct their errors, rectify their mistakes. How far short of an absurdity is it? This is suffrage without intelligence, without morality. Mr. President, I am not prepared for that. The honorable Senfrom Massachusetts says he wants to put the ballot into the hands of the black man for his protection. If he cannot read the ballot, what kind of protection is it to him? A written or printed . of paper is put into the hands of a man, black or white, and if he cannot read it, what is it to him. What does he know about it? What can he do with it? How can he protect himself by it? As well might the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts put in the hands of a child who knew nothing of firearms a loaded pistol with which to protect himself against his enemies. The illustration is by no means wanting in its force in various respects. The child would be much more likely to endanger himself and his friends by the pistol than to protect himself. A perfectly ignorant man who cannot read his ballot is much more likely to use it to his own detriment and to the detriment of the country than he is to use it for the benefit of either. It seems to me ridiculous to talk about putting the ballot into the hands of a man who, when he has got it, cannot deter mine the character of it. Whether he proposes to vote for one man or another; whether he proposes to vote yea or nay on any question, the ballot does not inform him. Is there any protection in that? I submit, sir, that on general principles without intelligence there can be no safety in allowing people to vote; there can be no safety in ignorant suffrage. I know that the honorable Senator and other gentlemen here make an appeal in regard to the blacks of the country because as it is said, and truly said, they have for a long period of timie been held under oppression; it has been a criminal offense for them to learn to read; and now to make reading or writing or both a qualification of suffrage is adding insult to injury. I do not so understand it. I do not understand that because we have been doing a cruel wrong and injustice to these people for centuries we are thereby bound to give them privileges which will not inure to their benefit, and which will be dangerous to society. Did I not believe they would, be thus dangerous I should vote most cheerfully to give every man of them the right of suffrage. I do believe that the principle is unsound, unsafe, dangerous in a e community, and I cannot vote for it. It is intimated that the freedmen will vote right on questions, now obefore the country. They, as it is asserted, know enough to know their friends, and they will vote right. That means, I suppose, that at the present the unscrupulous. of strength in the hands of time these men would cast ballots such as the such men, and can honorable Senfrom Massachusetts and I would cast at the same time, if we were au ous purposes. Hlan. There are men in this country who can, and the men who can will dupe the ignorant, Ignorant men are always tools and instruments in the hands of the ambitious, the unprincipied, They are a potent clement be used for the most mischievous and danger You increase the power of such thorized to vote at the same place; and it means, men indefinitely when you grant the elective that men like him and others in whom these ipnetoople might have confidence would put ballots the hands of those of them who cannot read, and tell them what the character of those ballots was, in order that they might deposit them in the ballot boxes and have the benefit of their votes. So far as the results are concerned at once and immediately it might be well; but when we are making a law in regard to suffrage we are not taking the part of men who are electioneering for a particular canvass; we are making a law which should have in it wisdom, which should have in it strength, and which is entitled, at least so far as we can judge, to remain perpetually on our statute book. In that state of things, I say, and I think history verifies the assertion, that it would be entirely unsafe to give to men whom we can influence to do right now a power which years, and possibly ages, after will be in the same innis, during all which time they will be subject to evil influences, and far more likely to do wrong than to do right. As to the question of hardship to the blacks, it is greatly overestimated; many of them can read now, those who cannot will soon learn, and the right to vote is a healthy stimulus to them to acquire knowledge; very few will be excluded by this test in 2 years' time. cannot regard it so certain as gentlemen seem to do that these people will be sure to vote on the right side. How long will it be before these men forgetting the wrongs, injuries, and cruelties that have. practiced upon them in the state of slavery to which they have been subjected will be forming new relations, new ties, new friendships? The honorable Senfrom Massachusetts even anticipates that it will be a very early day, for he says with a significance which perhaps will astonish himself when he comes to contemplate the full bearings of it, that the moment these men have the ball.ot, those who formerly oppressed and over them will be courting their riendship and treating them kindly. If that should happen, what would be the result? There w. ". the tie of friendship, of kindly influence immediately arising between those who had at a very late period been in this relation of antagonism. The honorable Senator repeated more than once “they know enough to know their friends.” The African race, I believe, is peculiarly susceptible to the feeling of gratitude; they remember benefits; and if their former masters, even those who have been cruel to them, come forward and treat them with kindness, with friendship, with justice, with generosity, they will be drawn to those masters by a tie stronger than any extending from SCarolina to Massachusetts, and one that will be much more efficient and much more practicable. The very men who are now yielding to right influences and who will vote with those who are voting right will be led, I fear, to vote wrong, and will be giving strength and irresistible strength to a power against which the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts has been warring for many years of his active and useful life, southern aristocracy. Now, if the ballot is put in the hands of these men at this time he will find it necessary within a few years to war with this same !". hereafter; I fear to his dying day, which hope will be very remote. Though men who are ignorant and unin formed may for a time be influenced on the right side of a question, yet as a general rule those men will be influenced most easily and most certainly to go on the wrong side. The honorable Senfrom Massachusetts cannot play the wily demagogue, the evil designing franchise to persons ignorant, simple, credulous, grateful for kindness, ready to bestow their confidence where they receive kindness, and ready to be led in any direction by men to whom they give their confidence. In this struggle for influence the Senfrom Massachusetts and those who act with him and it is my pleasure and my pride almost always to act with him will find themselves beaten, over. come to a certainty. I repeat we are not mak ling a law for one year or for 2 years, but we are making a law which we ought to consider perpetual; a rule for voters not merely in this district, but one which would be safe and salutary if adopted throughout the U.S. Under these circumstances I support the amendment proposed by my colleague to the amendment reported by the committee. I wish it were somewhat stronger, but it is better than no qualification. If it shall be adopted I shall then move, if no other Senator does, an amendment declaring that this provision shall not apply to men who have borne arms for the country during this rebellion. I would give such men the right to vote, even though they could neither read nor write. I think, under those circumstances, we should break the rule, 1st, because it would be but just to do so, and in the next place, the number would not be large enough to exercise a controlling influence. While I do not agree to the doctrine that the bailot and the bayonet necessarily must go together, for, as the honorable Senfrom Missouri showed us conclusively yesterday, and as others have showed, there is no connection between them; yet where men have borne arms for the government in this rebellion I would give then the right to vote, even though they were illiterate. If, Mr. President, I need any excuse for supporting this amendment, I beg leave to refer again to the constitution of my State, not, of course, binding on me as a representative of that State here, but still a light to guide me in my actions to a certain extent. We all, as I trust, respect the constitution and laws of our own State, and unless we assume to be wiser than those who made the constitution of our State and who make its laws the princi. ples of that constitution and of those laws will have their proper influence upon our action in this body. As I have said, Connecticut has this article in her constitution, superadding to it the qualification of a good moral character, I would be glad if that, too, could be adopted here; but it would be hardly practicable to carry that into effect, although in my own State it has been a test of qualification from the ear liest times. While I by no means claim that every elector in that State is a man of good moral character, I still think that provision of the constitution has been and is a wholesome and salutary one. It has had an effect on young men coming forward to be qualified as free men of the State. The fact that when they presented themselves before the board where every man takes what we call the freeman's oath before he is admitted as an elector, the fact that a man knows that the question of his moral character will come up and may be examined, has had a salutary effect, not that it makes every man moral, for we have our bad men as well as other States.