Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I do not believe that the pendin bill extending the franchise to women in the DistCol, offered by the Senfrom Pennsylvania, was designed to be carried out into practical legislation at this time or in this connection. I think it was ratherintended to elicit an expression of opinion from members of the Senate upon the general proposition involved. If it were to go into practical effect, I am one of those who believe that it would be necessary to accompany it by a good deal of other legislation to prevent it from degenerating into abuse and perhaps corrupting many of those it designs to advance in position and influence. But accepting the matter in the light which I have stated, for one I am willing to express an opinion very freely on the subject. I have to say then, sir, here on the floor of the American Senate, I stand for universal suffrage, and as a matter offundamental principle do not recognize the right of society to limit it on any ground of race, color, or sex. I will go further and say that I recog. nize the right of franchise as being intrinsically a natural right; and I do not believe that society is authorized to impose any limitation upon it that does not spring out of the neces sities of the social state itself. These may seem, Mr. President, extreme views, but they conform to the rigid logic of the question, and I defy any Senator here who abides that logic, to escape that conclusion. Sir, I have been shocked, yes, shocked, during the course of this debate at expressions which I have heard so often fall from distinguished Senators, and apparently with so little consideration of what the heresy irresistibly leads to, saying in substance that they recognize in this right of franchise only a conventional or political arrangement that may be abrogated at will and taken from any; that it is simply a privilege yielded to you and I and others by society or the Government, which represents society; that it is only a gracious boon from some abstraet place and abstract body for which we should be proud and thankful; in other words, that it is not a right in any sense, but only a concession. Mr. President, I do not hold my liberties by any such tenure. On the contrary, I believe that whenever you establish that doctrine, estion ennsyl amendment to the whenever you erystalize that idea in the public mind of this country, youring the death knell of American liberties. You take from each, what is perhaps the highest safeguard of all, the conviction that there are rights of men embra cing their liberty in society, and substitute a skepticism on o matters of personal freedom and popular liberties which will lay them open to be overthrown whenever society shall become sufficiently corrupted by partyism or whenever constitutional majorities shall become sufficiently exasperated by opposition. Mr. President, so important, yea so crucial, so to speak, do I deem this position, that I trust., be pardoned by the Senate if I refer to the abstract grounds, the invincible agreement upon which I deem it to rest. I do this the more readily because in my belief the metaphysical always controls ultimately the practical in all the affairs of life. Now, what are abstract rights? And are there any in trinsic neeessary conditions that go to constitute liberty in society?.I. believe that there are, and that those conditions are as determi nable as the liberties they protect. The foundation upon which all free government rests, and out of which all natural rights re. The unflow as from a common center, has been well stated by Mr. Herbert Spencer in a late work on Social Statics, to be “the liberty of each As the fun limited by the like liberty of all.” damental truth originating and yet circumscribing the validity of laws and constitutions, it cannot be stated in a simpler form. As the rule in conformity with which society must be and which distinguishes where the rightful subordination terminates, and where tyranny, whether of majorities or minorities, begins, it cannot be too much commended. “Every man has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man, ” is stated as the law of just social relationships, and in it the rights of individual liberty of thought, of speech, of action find their complete expression. It will be observed that equality is the essence of it all. In fact, any recognition of an inequality of rights is o to liberty. Observe, furthermore, that those rights in here in the individual, are part of his existence, and not the gift of any man or aggregation of men. If they were, equality under a despotism might find its justification in the ostulate just as well as equality under a republic. Caesarean democracy could claim. paternity with American democracy. he assumption, then; that freedom in any of its forms is a privilege conceded by society is utterly unwarrantable, because society itself is a concession from the individual the liberty of each limited by the like liberty of all and such limitation is what society or Government represents. And it is in this sense, and flowing from this axiom, that the rights of franchise originally appertain to all alike; for franchise is in itself nothing more than a mode of participating in the common Government, and represents only the interest, each has therein. That limitations may attach, thereto, just as they attach to freedom of speech or freedom of action, is perfectly true; but they must be equal limitations, applicable to all alike, growing out of the social relation, and not leveled at the inherent right of any individual or class. Thus the exclusion of criminals from the franchise, the designation of terms of minority as connected with the exercise of political duties, the regulation of the admission to citizenship of persons coming from foreign countries, fin their justification in a principle which, so far from recognizing in Government or society a purely arbitrary control of the rights and exercise of self government or personal liberty, brings it down within rigid and narrow limits of equality and necessity. There are those, and fam sorry some such have arisen in the Senate today, who seek to escape this conclusion, and put the blush upon all free government by affirming, as I have said, that the right of franchise is a purely political right, neither inherent nor iualienable, and may be divested by the citizen, or the State at will. The consideration mentioned, that the right of franchise is neither more nor less than the right of self government as exercised through a participation in the common government of all, shows, however, that if it be not a natural right it will be difficult to say in what a natural right consists. Indeed, it is perhaps the most natural of any of our rights, inasmuch as its denial is the denial of all right to personal liberty, for how can such latter right exist when the right to maintain it among men and the societies of men is denied? Again, if the right to share in the joint government is notinherent, from whence does it come? Who can give the right to govern another? and how ean any give that he has not got? Society is but the aggregate of individuals, and in its authority represents only the conceded limitations on all, not any reservoir of human rights, otherwise human rights won ld vary with every changing asso. it Still again, donator regard if the right of a man as s Government can be divested either by himself or Government at will, then Government has no limit to its rightful tyranny it may divest not only one man, but 100 or 1,000; indeed, why not all but the chosen few or the imperial one, thus arriving logically at oligar chic or despotic rule. And if a man may divest himself of this right, what right is sacred from his renuneiation? That a man inay refuse to exercise any right is true, and that in ehanging his abode he inay sever his politieal and social relations is equally true; but these facts only prove that his natural rights inhere in his person, go with him in his movement, subject always to be exercised under the conditions and limitations before recited. After all, to demonstrate the utter falsity and perni cious consequence of the idea that the right to share in the common Government (which is only a synonym for the right of franchise) is a privilege to be farmed out by Government at discretion and to whom it chooses, it is only necessary to ask, if that be so, whence comes the right to representation? Wherein is the foundation for any democratic o: cated on the rights of individuals? at various mixed Governments do undertake to limit the franchise to the few as a privilege coming from the body corporate has nothing to do with the question, for I am discussing now rights, not practices; republics, not aristocracies. such I believe, Mr. President, to be the H.” on which our personal rights, our iberties in society repose. It is true the argument carries us very far, but not further, I apprehend, than republican government must go whenever it undertakes to conform its practice to its logic. And having examined the general reasoning that controls the whole question of franchise, let me now advert more particularly to the bearing of that argument upon the proposition submitted by the Senfrom Pennsylvania. I know that many affirm that the results to which such reasoning as that I have adduced would lead are themselves conclusive against its force. But that is scarcely a fair mode of judging of the strength and invin cibility of any argument, far less one touching interests so momentous in character. o. To give the objection its greatest force it may be said, “if suffrage be the right of all men; why is not also the right of all women, of all children?” “Are they not equally interested in good government, and are they not equally capable of expressing through a vote their wish in relation to public affairs?” “Do they not come within the category, the equal liberty of each limited by the like liberty of all, and if so, can the infringement of their liberty by disfranchisement be justified?”. To such questions, and in fact to the whole inquiry, it may be o that as freedom finds the expression of its limits in the social relation itself, so long as the marital and paternal state remain as they are now, essential parts to that social relation, so long will there be more or less of constraint involved in their expression through governmental forms. And it may be added also that in so far as marriage and aternity establish an indentity of interest i.husband and wife, or parent and child, so far the participation of the one in the government is virtually the participation of both, the franchise of one the franchise of both. such identity is not always true or equable, but it nevertheless approximates truth, and is therefore the more readily accepted as such in practical affairs. That the rights of women, however, are intrinsically the same with those of men, may not be consistently denied; and that all the advance of modern civilization has been toward according them greater equality of condition is attested by the current history of every nation within its pale. Rights of married women and mine rs are constantly finding expression in new our laws and new force in our jopinion, which is only law in process of formation. While it will not be necessary, therefore, to go into those deeper and anterior questions of social life involving the substitution of voluntary for compulsory modes which are agitating so profoundly the intellect of this age, it is important to note that of the 3 great depts of control in human affairs, namely: morals or conscience, manners or society, government or laws, the 2 former have been unreservedly conceded to the full and equal participation of women. And furthermore, I venture to affirm with all confidence, that although the social relation, as it embraces a recognition of family dependence, may present obstacles to an equal influence jpresent forms of government and to the full exercise of citizen rights on the part of women, yet that the purity, the refinement, the instinctive reading of character, the ele gant culture of the women of our land, if brought to bear upon the conduct of political affairs, would do much to elevate them in all their aims, and conform them to higher stand ards of justice. Mr. President, I have listened in vain for the the argument on which is predicated the assertion that sex alone a s a rightful ground for exclusion from the rights of franchise. I do not find anything to justify that view, even in the position of those who contend that franchise is a mere political privilege and not founded in any.for that would apply to men equally as to women, and does not touch the question of relative rights.. The position would still remain to be established why the franchise should be given to the one and not to the other. It would remain still to present grounds of principle on which that right as i.may be denied to her and not denied to iii. I have heard reasons of policy, reasons of sentiment, reasons of precedent advanced to justify this exclusion; but in all frankeess, and with no disrespect intended, I must say that those which have been presented during this debate seem to me trivial, illogical, and contradictory of each other. 1st, it has been said that if women are entitled to the rights of franchise they would correspondingly come under the obligation to bear arms. But, sir, I do not know that there is any necessary commection between the rights of franchise and the requirement of service in your Army. On the contrary, I do know that all Governments which have existed among men do now recognize the fact that there is no necessary connection between the two; and I do know that no Government has more distinctly recognized that portion than the government of the U.S. Are there not large classes even among men in, this country who are exempt from service in our armies for physical incapacity and for other reasons? And if exemptions which pertain, to males may be recognized as o not similar exemptions for, like reason when applied to females? Does it not prove that there is nothing in the argument so far as it involves the question of right? There are Quakers and other religious sects; there are ministers of the gospel; persons having conscientious scruples; indeed, all men over a certain age who under the laws of many of the States are released from service of that character. Indeed, it is the boast of their Republic that ours is a volunteer military establishment. Hence I say there is nothing in the position that because she may not be physically qualified for service in your Army therefore you have the right to deny her the franchise on the score of sex. It might be an inquiry of very great interest and worthy of being pursued much further than I have the time or the ability to pursue it just now, how far, if the ballot should be extended to all the women in this land, it would go to modify existing opinion and action and relationship among States so as to obliterate in a great degree the very necessity for your Army and Navy. I believe, sir, that a very large majority of the wars that have been waged in this world have been wars that were condemned by the moral sense of the nations on both sides, wars that would have been terminated forthwith if that moral sense could have had its rightful influence in controlling the affairs of Government; and I say it is a question that is worthy of consideration how far such an element introduced into your political control would go to obviate these barbarous resorts to force which you now deem essential and which we all deplore, but which it is a folly if not a crime to say constitute a reason woman should be denied any right to which she would be otherwise entitled. Mr. President, a 2nd objection has been taken to any extension of the franchise in this direction, and it is one that perhaps has more seeming force in it than the other, It has been said with a great deal of pathos by the Senfrom NewJersey: what, would you have your wives and your daughters mingle in the scenes at the election booths, go into the riotous demonstrations that attend upon the exercise of the ballot, and become parti cipants in the angry and turbulent strifes that are so characteristic of our political modes? I say with frankness that I would not have wife or daughter mingle in any such scene; I would be loth to have their purity and their virtue exposed to such demoralized surroundings, 4 surroundings that are only too apt to corrupt even the males that mingle in the political arena. But, sir, I contend that that is an argument against the ballot and the hustings and the polling booths, and not against the rights of woman. It is an argument against those corruptions that you have permitted to grow and fasten upon your political methods and appliances and not an argument against her rights as contrasted with the rights of man. What! usurp an exclusive control, then degrade the modes of exercising power, and after that say the degradation is reason why the usurpation should continue unchallenged. What profanation of the very powers of thought is that! On the contrary I am prepared to say that I see no reason, I never have seen any reason, why there might not be changes introduced in your modes of taking the sense of the community, of ascertaining public opinion upon public measures, making selection even of its individuals for important offices, that would conform them far more to those refinements and those elevations which should characterize and control them, purifications that might render them appropriate for participation in by the most jof the o, whether male or female. I see no reason why it should not be done. The change has been constant already from the very rudest forms to the forms which we now have, and which I am sorry to say are sufficiently rude to disgrace the civilization of the age. Why not further amelioration and adaptation? Are we to have no progress in the modes of government among men? Are we and future generations to be ever impris oned in the uncouth alternative of monarchical or democratic forms as they now obtain? I cannot believe it. For 5 years past we hawe had revolution enough among us to satisfy even the most conservative that the present is no ultimatum, either of form or substance, in political or social affairs. I will go further and venture to say that there are now seething underneath all the forms of this Government, revolutions still more striking than anyone of us have yet witnessed. Beneath all these meth ods and appliances of administrations and controls among men I believe there is under our very feet a heaving, unsteady ocean of aroused o: in which many modes now practiced will sink to rise no more, and out of which other adaptations will emerge that will render far more perfect the reflection of the will of the people; that will perhaps represent minorities as well as majorities; that will disarm corruptions by dispensing with party organizations. It is the very witching hour of change. And, sir, I do not dread, change. Why should we? Is not change the primal condition on which all life is permitted to exist? Change is the very essence of all things pure, the sign and token of the divinity that is within us, and conservatism perse is infidelity against the ordination of God. When, therefore, we see such change in all things that are around us, in fashions and customs and laws and recognitions and intellectualities, even to the supremest generalizations of science, in all things save the elemental principles of our being and by consequence of our rights, why shall we say that these forms into which we have cast administration and government shall not obey the great law of development and take upon themselves ameliorations better suited to the changing society of mankind, to the wants of a more truthful representation, to the participation by all in the Government that is overall. Mr. President, I am of those who believe that they will. When I look around on the incongruities and corruptions that surround our present system, when I see what polities and government and administration actually are, if I believed there was to be no progress in that direction I should be bereft of all hope and desolate of faith. On the contrary, methinks I can see adown the vista of the future the olden apples hanging on the tree of promise. t seems to me that the light of the morning is already streaming in upon us that shall minate further advancements in the science of government. And why should not even republican government take to itself other modes of administration without infraction of its fundamental liberties? Why should not large reductions transpire in those opportunities that invite the most sinister combination for offices and spoils? Is there any reason why the emoluments of place should more than repay the labor it calls for? Is there any reason why large abolitions of executive patronage may not transpire; why Government may not generate through examining commissioners, best agencies of its own for the functional work it is called to perform, leaving appeals to the community to pass rather upon controlling measures and general policies and legislative functionaries? Is there any reason o that should not take P. Sir, already, if I mistake not, in the arge cities of this land, which are the local points of your domestic political system, the necessity for such a change is being felt and acted upon, and large branches of executive work and supervision are being necessarily put in commission. Mr. President, I think what I have said suf. o: shows that the argument which is advanced, that the present surroundings are such that woman could not properly participate in your elections, is an argument that does not go to the right of the woman, but does go to the wrong of the man. It is a criticism, perhaps a satire upon the civilization of your political system, not a justification for any exclusions practiced under it. There issone other line of remark that has been indulged in, and only one other so far as I have heard, which calls for any special rejoinder, and that affirms the precedents of the past to be all against any such proposition as that now submitted. It is said that there is {. no that is not customary in any of our governments, that it is not one of the recognitions of our society, that it has never been sig nified as such in the past. I do not know that such an argument amounts to anything at best, but I do know that the allegation itself has no foundation in fact. I know that in many cases and on many occasions this impassable barrier that is now set forth as dividing the natural rights of man and woman has been broken down and trampled upon, and that, too, without any injury to the society from so doing. perhaps I can best illustrate this point by what an accomplished lady, who has given much thought and research to the subject, has presented. read from a contribution she has made to one of our leading public prints. She says: “So long as political power wasof an absolute and hereditary character women shared it whenever they, happened, by birth, to hold the position to which it was attachcd. In Hungary, in someof the German States, and in the French Provinces to day, this certain woman, holding an inherited right, confer, the franchise upon their husbands, and in widowhood, empower. Some relative, or agent accredited to be the legislative protector of their property. In 1858, the authorities, of the old university town of Upsal granted the right of suffrage to 50 women owning real estate, and to 31 doing business on their own account. The representative that their votes electedwas to sit in the House of Burgesses. In Scotland, it is less than a century since, for election purposes, parties were unblushingly married in caseswere women conveyed a political franchise, and parted after the election. In Ireland, the court of Queen's Bench, Dublin, restored to women, in January, 1864, the old right of voting for town commissioners. The Justice. Fitzgerald desired to state that ladies were also entitled to sit as town commissioners, as well as to justice vote for them, and the chief took pains to make it nothing clear that there was in the act of voting repugnant to their habits. “In November, 1864, the Government of Moravia decided that all women who were tax payers had the right to vote. In the Government of Pitcairn's Island, women over 16 have votedever since its settlement. In Canada, in 1850, a distinct electoral privilege was conferred on women, in thereby the hope that the Protestant might balance the Roman Catholic power in the school system. I lived where I saw this right exercised by female property holders for 4 years. I never heard the most cultivated man, not even that noble gentleman, the late Lord Elgin, object to its results. In NewJersey, the constitution adopted in 1776gave the right of suffrage to all inhabitants, of either sex, who possessed 50 dollars in proclamation money. In 1790, to make it clearer, the Assembly inserted the words, “he or she.” Women voted there till 1838, when the votes of some colored women having decided an theFo against the negro came election to the aid of lordly supremacy, and an act was passed limiting the right of su e to “free white male citizens.” In 1852 the Kentuc conferred the right on widows with children in matters relating to the school system. The same right was conferred in Michigan; and full suffrage was given to women in the State constitution submitted to Kansas in 1860.” I think that is a list of illustrations sufficient to dispose of any argument that may arise on such a score. And now, Mr. President, Po me to say in concluding the remarks I have felt called upon to make here, that I have spoken rather as indicating my assent to the principle than as expecting any present practical results from the motion in question. In the earliest part of my political life, when 1st called upon to representa constituency in the General Assembly of Missouri, in looking around after my arrival at the seat of Government at those matters that seemed to me of most importance in legislation, I was struck with 2 great classes of injustices, 2 great depts in which it seemed to me the laws and the constitutions of my State had done signal wrong. Those were, one as respects the rights of colored persons; the other as respects the rights of married women, mine rs, and females; and I there and then determined that whenever and wherever it should be in my power to aid in relieving them of those inequalities and those injustices I would do so to the extent of my humble ability. Since then I have labored zealously in those 2 reforms as far and as fast as a public opinion could be created or elicited to enforce them, and I can say from oown observation that each step of advance taken has been fruitful of all good and productive of no evil. fing ol.the face of that progress. Emancipation of the colored race in Missouri has been achieved in a most thorough manner, substantially achieved even before the war; and today the community is ripe for the dec laration that all are created equal, and that there is no reason to exclude from any right, civil or political, on the ground of race or color. I feel proud to say likewise that missouri has gone further, and wiped from her statute book large portions of that unjust and unfair and illiberal legislation which had been leveled at the rights and the property of the women of the State. Believing that that cause which embraces and embodies the cause of civil liberty will go forward still triumphing and to triumph, I will never, so help me God, cast any vote that may be construed as throw Even though I recognize, therefore, the impolicy of coupling these 2 measures in this manner and at this time, I shall yet record my vote in the affirmative as an earnest indication of my belief in the principle and my faith in the future.