Mr. COOK. Mr. Speaker, from a carefully prepared statement which I hold in my hand it appears that under the census of 18610there would bein this House 19 members elected upon the basis of representation which includes 3/5ths of the former slaves of the South. These men have no constituencies; a representative is one who represents another, is the exonent of his views and the executor of his will. he men having seats in this House upon a slave basis merely were not chosen by and did not indicate the will of those who have the constitutional designation of 3/5ths of all other persons. So far as being heard in this House, or their wishes expressed, they might as well have been in Africa as America. The practical fact with which we have to deal is this: the white people in certain States were nted an unequa and disproportionate number of Representatives upon this floor because they were the owners of s aves, so thatin those States each voter had a greater power and in fluence in the Government than any voter in any free State; and to such extent was this in equality carried that in some districts in mississippi one man was the equal, in power and influence in the election of members of this House and of the President and VEEP, of any 2 men in the district I represent. The men elected on this basis were the Representatives of the slave power which proved itself dangerous to the Republic while it lived, and is now dead. The foundation is ne, the superstructure should fall with it. but by the fact that slavery is dead this in epuality of representation is increased; instead o 19 members, upon the basis of 1860, the number would be increased 2/5ths, the 3/5ths of a person has become a whole person. The reward) of treason will be an increased Representation in this House, an increased influence in the Government to the traitors who have sworn and striven to destro it. It seems to me impossible that any candi man can seriously contend that loyal men who have loved their country and suffered for it should not have the same vmce in the government of the country with the men who have fought to destroy it. If gentlemen on the other side desire to make this issue to the country I hope that it will be prom tly accepted by us. Let this issue be joine, and let us go to the countryu on it. I can see and a precinte the reason why gentlemen on the other side of this Hall Oppose this mendment. The men elected on this unequal bnsis are their allies, from whom they are now anxiously looking for reenforcements to enable them to regain the nscendency in this House and in the national Government which they lost when those allies deserted them. We have now, as I believe the golden opportunity to remedy this evil which will never come again to the men of this generation. The system of slavery has fallen. The States whose representation was increased by it have, with 2 or 3 exceptions, destroyed their loyal and legal State governments, and now seek reconstruction. The ComReconstruction having reported this amendment, I infer that they will, if this amendment is submitted to the State Legislatures by recommend thatits adoption by the StaCtoensgraetsesly, in rebellion be one of the guarantees to be in sisted upon as a condition precedent to their taking equal authority and rank in the Union with the loyal States. Suppose we refuse to pass this proposition now. Is there any probability that it can be passed when the rebel States are again represented upon this floor with their unequal representation 7 and if it can, is it not certain that it will not be adopted by the States who are ben efited by it, unless it is made a condition precedent to their reconstruction? The honorable Gentfrom NewYork [Mr. BROOKS] said that this question was pressed merely for the sake of agitation, (that argument has always been used to protect wron and injustice) and he said that it was only fol y to believe it would be sdecessful. I believe that it is fully to believe that it will ever be successful unless it is successful now. Some of the State Legislatnres are now in session which will not again meet for 2 years. If We are going to pass this measure at all it must he passed now. I confess, Mr. Speaker, that, feeling the immense importance of this question, it is with eat pain and with some impatience that I have stened to the efforts to defeat it on this side of the House, and I wish to consider briefly the objectious ur edto it. It is insisted that the basis of representation should be voters only. To this proposition there are these objections: 1. It is difficult to enumerate voters accurately; their qualifications are fixed by State laws. We cannot send Federal officers into every State to adjudicate, in disputed cases, the rights of those claimin to be voters under the State laws, as we should have to do. 2. It would not bejust; the voters of the country are unequally distributed. The old States have fewer, the new States more, voters according to the white population. In other words, there is a greater proportion of women and children in the old States. These should be and are represented. They are represented, in the true sense of that word, by their fathers and brothers. The man who represents them does so really and practically, and not by legal fiction, like the man who represents “ 3/5ths of all other persons.” 3. t takes from the basis of representation all unnaturalized foreigners. I do not wish to discuss the question whether this would be judicious or not, but I do not want a measure of this almost supreme importance loaded down with these questions, an its passage jeopardized by the incorporation of provisions which would render it so liable to attack and misrepresentation. There is this other objection: if 10,000 men in any State are disqualified by a State law from voting by a property qualification, we shall also deduct them from the basis of representation for want of a property qualification, a proposition odious to me, and which [believe cannot be successfully commended to the people. I think that the success of this proposition, in loyal States even, is wholly problematical, and we cannot afford to lose this opportunity to correct a great wrong simply by a differenceIabout words. It is said that Massachusetts prescribes as a qualification that voters should read and write, and that the unfortunate class who are disfranchised in that State should be looked after. Sir, has this exclusion ever worked harm to the Union? Does it make a real practical difference between the voter of Massachusetts and Illinois as to the influence each shall exercise in the Government of the country? Besides, I believe that practically it has no bearing even in Massachusetts. I am informed by men who have had eat share in the polities of Massachusetts, that no man is practically disfranchised in Massachusetts because he cannot read and write, that it is never made a cause of challenge. However that may be, we are not now called to redress the wrongs of the non-voters of Massachusetts; their exclusion does not injure the nation practically, does not deprive a man in Illinois of his due share in the choice of President and VEEP, and his due influence in Congress. We cannot right all wrongs in a single measure; let us confine ourselves to those in which we have a practical interest. It is said that the southern States may impose a property qualification, and so exclude the negroes, not on account of race or color, but for want of a property qualification, or that they might dprovide for a qualification of intelligence, an so disfranchise the negroes because they could not read or write, and still enumerate them. To do this they must 1st repeal all the laws now denyin sufirage to no es; and 2nd, provide qualifications which will disfranchise half their white voters; 2 thin neither of which will, in any human probability, occur and in the event that it was possiblethat both these measures should he adopted, and all the blacks and half the whites disqual ified, it would become a grave question whether the provision of the constitution which requires the U.S. to guaranty to each State a RFG would not authorize the Government to rectif so gross a wrong. There is no measure to which fanciful objections may not be urged; but I believe this to be the least objectionable of any measure which has been suggested to meet this evil. But above all, I am well persuaded that it is the only measure that can meet the approval of 3/4ths of the States; consequently, that this is the only practical measure before the House. To the propositions of the honorable Gentfrom Visconsin, Mr. Swan] and of the honorable Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. Law RENGE] there is this unanswerable objection, they provide that taxation shall be based upon the valuation of property, each 100 dollars worth of property grayin the same tax with every other one undr dollars worth of property. To this there are iusu erable objections. Some species of property, like real estate in the State of Illinois, is not sufficiently productive to bear taxation, while some articles of luxury merely, as spirits and tobacco, must and can bear heavyimposts. Cotton, also, of which we have a monopol, must be taxed, and England and France t as made to help bear the burden they have helped to impose. These projects are not now feasible. Here the hammer fell.]