Mr. JOHNson. Ofcourse that means those included and excluded. I mean the whole number 21 years ofage and upward. Now, let us see what will be the operation of the amendment on my own State. I will take that 1st. In 1860, by the census, it appears that Maryland had 128, 371 white males 20 years of age and upward, and that she had of the same age 38,030 black males. The% age, therefore, that the blacks of that age bore to the whites was 29 and live 10thser eent. Now, in order to make myself understood more clearly, let me turn to the words of the section. If any portion of the male inhabitants of a State 21 years of age and upward are denied the privilege of voting, or that privilege is in any way abridged. then “the basis of representation in such State shall he reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens not less than 21 years of age.” Then, what are we to do? We are to add together the number of whites of that acin Maryland and the number of blacks, 21111th?e aggregate is 166, 401. Now, what says the section? That the representation of Maryland is to be dimin ished, if she excludes all the blacks, in the proportion that 38,030 bear to 166, 401. What is that proportion? It is nearly one 4th; it is exactly 22 and 9 10th s%. Let me be understood; for if such is not the purpose of the committee, I am sure they will change it. The basis of representation, in the event of an exclusion, is to be reduced “in the proportion which the number of such male citizens” who are excluded “shall bear to the whole number of male citizens” not less than 21. Is it not manifest, then, that we are to ascertain, 1st, how many white citizens there are who are permitted to vote; 2nd, how many citizens there are who are not permitted to vote? I assume, now, that in Maryland the whole number of black citizens who might vote with the authority of Maryland will be excluded by her authority, that number being 38,030, and the aggregate of both classes being 106, 401. Having got the entire number, what is the next ste toward ascertaining the effect of the propose amendment? To ascertain the ro portion that the number denied the franc ise bears to the entire number who it is assumed ought to have the right to the franchise. In other words, to apply it to the case of Maryland, the re iresentation of Maryland is to be diminished y ‘diminishing the basis of her representation in the proportion that the number of citizens excluded bears to the whole number, as well those who are included within the benefit of the franchise as those who are excluded. Then it is a simple question of arithmetic. what is the proportion between 38,030 and 166.401? It is nearly one 4th. The basis would be lessened 22 and 9 10th s%, or in other words 22 and 9 10th s%. of166, 401 would be deducted from that aggregate number. What would be the result 0! that? The result would be the loss of one Representative, Maryland now having 5, and possibly, by force of the fraction, the loss of another, but c'ertainly the loss of one. But it is a great deal worse in other States 1,000 times worse. Ircfer now to the same table furnished by the census of1860. I shall not trouble the Senate with it, except to call their attention to 2 or 3 of the other southern States, and then to 2 or 3 of the northern States by way of comparison. The number of white male citizens 20 years of age and upward in the State of SCarolina when this census was taken was 68, 154. The number of black males of the same age at the same time was 02, 923, being a% age of 57 and 6 10thsof the aggregate. Here, then, the black males were more numerous than the white males above 20. What is to be done in SCarolina? You add together the number of whites and the number of blacks, and if the blacks are not permitted to vote, as they are not, then you deduct from the basis of representation such an amount as may be ascertained by ascertaining the proortion that the number of blacks bears to tie aggregate number of whites and blacks, and what is that? As 92, 928 is more than 68, 164, SCarolina loses at least 1/2 of her representation, and in fact she loses more. It is sufficient for my purpose to show that she loses one half. Go to Mississippi and the result is nearly the same. Her white males above 20 were 84, 338, and her black males of the same age 98, 510, being a% age of 53 and 8 10thsof the whole. So that State would lose halfher representation. Now, Mr. President, how will the rule ro posed Operate on the northern States? The people of the northern States are, and are correct y assumed to be, just and fair. How does it operate on the State of my friend the chair man of the committee of 15, [Mr. Fesssx DEN?] Her whites of 20 years of age and upward in 1860 were 167, 724 and her blacks of the same age were 302, a ercent age of 2 10thsof 1%. fiis State will not suffer by this provision, it is certain. Then go to the State of my friendfrom NewHampshire, [Mr. CLARK.) They had 91, 944 white males above 20 and 140 blacks, a little over one 10th of 1%. It is obvious that neither of these 2 States will lose anything by this rule. I need not fatigue the attention of the Senate by calling their attention to the other northern States. Gentlemen diminish our representation unless we consent to surrender our own judgment of what we believe to be true policy, and they leave their own untouched. this a ruine us result as far as we are concerned; it is a perfectly harm less result as far as they are concerned. How is it in the State of my friendfrom Michigan, [Mr. Hownini] who has had more especially the charge of this measure since it came from the last special committee?