Mr. HENDRICKS. If that be the practice of the Senate, it ought now to be abandoned. Why, sir, does the constitution establish a HoRep and a Senate, and declare that the legislative power shall not belong to one body, but shall belong to 2 bodies, acting separately and independently? The purpose of the constitution is that every important measure affecting the country shall before it becomes a law, receive the consideration of 2 Houses separately, each giving its separate attention to the subject and so far does the principle on this subject go that We cannot in debate in this body refer to the doings of the HoRep; we are not allowed by the rules of the body to refer to the action of the House; and why? Because it is the purpose that the action and judgment of the flouse shall have no influence upon theScuate, nor shall the judgment of the Senate have any influence upon the House; and the purity of legislation requires that upon all grave questions each House shall act separately and indecndenily, and that principle is not departed, from except when there is. a disagreement. between the 2 bodies, and then a committee of conference attempts to reconcile that disagreement. and, sir, if this is a sound principle of legislation, I ask, ought it to be departs from when we propose to amend the constitution of the U.S.? Ought not a proposition to amend the constitution to be consideredby each branch without reference to the judgment of the other? Herc, sir, is a large committee, 9 of the House. 6 of the Senate, 15, holding a joint conference upon a subject before it comes to either body, and at the same time a report is made from that committee to both bodies, thereby defeating the very purpose of the constitution in having separate branches of the Legislature. This committee had its birth in a party caucus and has constituted itself a new French Directory, set up in Washington to control the action of Government, to grasp in its hands the functions of Congress, and to dictate to the Executive. It is composed of 9 members from the HoRep, and of 6 members from the Senate. It meets in secret session, wholly free from the observation of the public, and at such place and time as may suit its own pleasure. Over the door of its meeting place might be appropriately written, “No admittance for the American people; this place is sacred to a political inquisition, whose will is law to the President and to congress, and whose fiat binds the fortunes and ctermines the fate of 11 States and 8 million peole.” The committee select witnesses according to their own good will. Their writs of subpena run throng iout the country, and they can draw upon the Treasury for their expenditures. They cogitate constitutional amendments for the operation of the previousquestion in the HoRep, an for. the lash of party discipline in the Senate. The Orepresentation of 11 States stands susi pended during theii slcasurc, and while they may devise how the POTUS shall be broken to their will, or be degraded before the people. In the exercise of this fearful and odious power, one 4th of the people of the nation are arraigned before the secret bar of the tribunal of 15, and their fate may be determined upon the evidence of spies, informers, contractors, political agents, and hostile officials. That, Mr. President, is the committee which, prouses these amendments to the constitution ioft e U.S.; acommittee or nized for party purposes; a committee that adits jbirth, as I said, in aparty caucus; a committee that was carried through the HoRep the 1st day of the session, an, inv myjudgment, could not have been carried at any later day of the session; a committee that was carried through this body after some amendments of the House resolution. That committee proposes amendments to the organic law of the country, and we are expected, and I suppose it will be done, to passthem in this body. Then, after speakin of the committee that brings the proposition)cfore the body, I wish to inquire a little into the history of this constitutional amendment that is proposed. The 1st proposition that was talked o during the session, and the very 1st proposition that came before this body, was the proposition of the Senfrom Massachusetts, [M Mr. SUMNER] offeredion the 1st day of the session. That proposition was, as he has since very ably discussed ithe question, that taxation and representation ilshall rest upon the same basis. His proposition was that taxation and representation should rest upon the voting population of the U.S., limited to those persons who are voters and over 21 years of age. I heard no objection to that proposition until it was made in the HoRep. I presume I may refer, under the rules, to what maybe said in the House In matter of history without ra ferring to it for any purpose of influencing the judgment of the Senate. The objection made in the House to the proposition of the Senfrom Massachusetts [for the some proposition was made there) was that it was unequal; and the Senfrom Maine, [Mr. FESSENDHN] who reported this resolution from the committee, expressed the same objection to the voting basis that was made in the House; that it was unequal; that the male population of NewEng land was not so great in proportitm to the female population as in the western States, and especially as in California, and therefore NewEng land, under that proposition, would not receive so large a representation as the western States. There was force in the objection: for if you examine the census of 18w, it will be found that the female population of the 6 States of NewEngland exceeds the male population by some 50,000, while in the 6 great agricultural States of Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Illinois, Missouri, and Iowa, the malepoulation exceeds the female population by 297,758. Adopting the voting population, then, as the basisof representation and taxation, the 6 great agricultural States of the West that I havementioned would have the advantage of NewEngland by 2 or 3 Representatives. NewEngland would not endure that. From the time the speech was made developing that fact in the HoRep, no man has raised his voice for tcvoting basis. Mr. President, upon what should representation and taxation rest? The constitution as it now stands provides: “Representatives and direct taxes shall beapportioned among the several States. which may bu included within this Union, accordingtotheir respective numbers. which shall be determinedby adding to the whole number of freo persons, including those bound to service for a term of ycars, and excluding Indians not taxed, 3/5ths of all other persons.” This is the revision of the constitution which it is propose to amend. This provision rests upon the doctrine of the Revolution, 11 on the established principle and polic of the government that representation an taxation shall have the same basis of support. The propriety and justice of the principle was not questioned in the Convention that made the Constitution, nor in the conventions of the States that ratified that instrument, and it is today the cherished doctrine of the American people that taxation ought not to go beyond representation. The opinion has been attributed to the President that taxation ought to rest upon property. In my judgment, it should be so, but at the was time I may say it will never be. Property is the propersubject of taxation, and taxes ought to be levied upon persons in proportion to their estates. That is the principle that prevails in the States, and in my judgment property should be the basis of Federal taxation; but it is not, and while NewEngland, in proportion to her population, and NewYork and Pennsylvania are so much more wealthy than the other States of the Union, that basis never can be secured. Then, sir, if taxation cannot be made to rest upon property, where I think it should rest, on lit taxation to go beyond representation?I will not attempt to discuss the question so fully exhausted by the Senfrom Massachusetts, Mr. SUMNER. One difficultyin forming the constitution of the U.S. grew out of the relation of the slaves to the people. In some respects they were regarded as persons, and in over respects as property, an a compromise was the result of the consideration of the questiona compromise to the effect that 3/5ths of the slave population should be counted. But, sir, under the constitution, as the slaves became free, they fell into the population that were counted man for man; and now as slavery has been abolished, the entire colored population is to be counted for the purpose of taxation and representation under the present constitution; but it is proposed to change the constitution so that they shall not be counted in States where they are not allowed to be voters. This propdaition when 1st brought before the body provided thatrepresentation and direct taxation should stand together and rest. upon thl same basis. After a further consideration of the subject, it was decided to strike out the words “ and direct taxation, ” and that was the 2nd report from the committee. The effect of that is, that taxation upon the southern States shall be increased, so far as it rests upon the colored population, 2/5ths, and representation, so far as it rests uponthat population, shall be reduced 3/5ths. Now, there is in the northern States a non-voting white population. You count them for purposes of taxation. You count them for purposes of representation. You do not for either purpose inquire whether they exercise the privileges of a citizen by voting. You simply count them, and you make no difference. BntAin the South you propose to tax the people of the States upon the colored population, and you deny them representation upon that population. Mr. President, upon what principle does this proposition rest? Every great amendment to the constitution of course ought to rest upon some principle. Neither its provision for taxation or for representation rests upon property, as I have said. It does not rest upon voters, because it allows persons to be counted who are not voters. l bite persons who are not. voters are counted. It does not rest. upon the entire population of the country, because it excludes nearly 4 millions who are not voters. In the North, Iunderstand there are from 15 to 20 Representatives u No.nonlvotin, population, and this proposcmmendment will not change it in that regard. Iwill read a very short extract from 2 5 eeches on this subject made by very distinguished supporters of this proposition: “Again, many of the largo States now hold their representationin part by reasonof their aliens.” Another gentleman, the chairman of this committee in the House, said: “Now. sir, there is another fatal phjection to the proposition of my friendfrom Ohio. That proposition was that representation and taxation should rest upon the voting population. “ IfIhave been rightly informed asto the number, there are from 15 to 20 Representntives in the northern States founded upon those who are not. citizens of the U.S. In NewYork I think there are 3 or 4 Representatives founded upon the foreign po nlation. ihrce certainly and so it is inWisconsin, own, and other northern States. There are 15 or 20 northern Representatives that would be lost by that amendment.” Then, sir, there are today in the House of, Representatives from 15 to 20 Representatives based upon a population who are denied the right of voting by the laws of the country. If it e right to deny to southern States a representation in the HoRep because the do not allow a certain class to vote at the polls, as honest men wanting to deal justly and fairly, how can you deny a representation upon a non-voting population in the southern States? We are considering too grave a question to perpetrate inequality and injustice. If the North ins upon a nonvoting population the benefit of from 15 to 20 liepresentatives, how is it that she can say that no other section of the country shall enjoy the same right, if it is the pleasure of the States to deny the right of voting? I Then, sir, as the proposition does not rest upon population, as it does not rest upon property, as it does not rest uripn voters, upon what grinciple does it rest? pon what principle o Senators propose to adopt this amendment to the constitution? I can understand it if you say that the States shall be represented in the HoRep upon theirlation; ppfivn I can unerstand it if on say that ey shall be represented upon their voters; but when on say that one State shall have the benefitofyits non-voting population and another State shall not, I cannot understand the principle of equity and justice which governs you in that measure. Sir, if it does not stand upon a principle, upon what does it rest? It rests upon a politipal policy. A committee that had its birth in a party caucus brings it before this body, and does not conceal the fact that it is for party purposes. This measure, if you ester allow the southern States to be represented in the HoRep, will bring them back shorn of 15 or 20 Representatives; it will brin them back so shorn in their representation t t the Republican party can control this country forever; and if you can cut off from 15 to 30 votes for POTUS in the States that will not vote for a Republican candidate, it may be that you can electa Republican candidate in 1868. Now, sir, upon this subject I ask the attention of Senators. These are no words of mine. I will put upon the stand the most influential Republican today in the Congress of the U.S. He says: “Accordin to my judgment they ought never to be recogniz as caps. lo of actingin the Union, or of being countedas valid States, until the constitution shall have beenso amendedas to make it what its framersintended; and sousto secure perpetual as cendancyto the party of the Union.” That is the phrase of these times by which men undertake to describe their own party, the party of the Union.” A party that today says this Union shall not be restored a party that today says that 11 States shalrstay out of Congress, arrogates to itself the name of “the Union party. Describing his party by that term he says that the constitution must be so amended as to secure the perpetual as cendancy of the Union party: “sififiillll?ilti. fii”ti2ifi fiiififffh estlhiibrn white men enough in the South. aided by the blacks, to divide the representation, and thus continue the Republican ascendancy.” That is a little more distinct. Dropping the phrase, “the Union party, ” the hea of this committee, the chieftain in the House, comes squarely out in the HoRep and says that the constitution must be so amended as to secure the perpetual ascendency of the Republican party. Mr. President have we come to that in the Senate of the U.S., that we abandon principle, that we seek no longer to base representation upon population, that we do not seek to base representation upon voters, but that we mingle the basis of representation so as to secure a party life? I hope that I shall never come to the consideration of a question of so grave importance with a artisan feeling. here is another purpose, in my judgent, or if it be not a purpose it will be an effect of i this measure, to cut of? representation from the agricultural portion of the country, and to that extent to increase the representation of the manufacturing districts, and thus permanently fasten upon the country the NewEngland pol iey and the NewEngland power. My colleague has agreed to this my colleague who represents a portion of the agricultura section of the country, has agree in a very able speech to the proposition that from the agricultural States shall be stricken a large proortion of their representation. Wh, sir, is the right of votin given for the benefit of the party who casts the vote alone or is it given or the benefit of the voter and the count I Is, representation based upon population rfin the benefit of a single individual, or for the protection of the interests in which all the people have their fortunes? The States and country that rest upon the Ohio and Mississippi rivers and their tributaries have a common interest. They cannot cease to be agricultural States. The plow must turn wealth up to the men of the West. We need a representation in the House, and I say to my colleague that I cannot agree with his judgment that we have a right to consent that a portion of the representation which secures agriculture shall be cut off from the HoRep. Mr. presicut. I would not saya word against NewEngland. I honor and respect NewEngland for er glorious revolutionary history, for her virtues of frugality, industry, and enter prise; but I cannot consent that She shall have on increased advantage in the representation of the country. I will ask my colle e if he does not teda know that advantagzfiilas been taken of the est during this war. I will not an by design; Iwill not sa for the purpose of taing advantage but I as him if in act the interests of the West and the Northwest have not been subordinated to the interests of another section of the country?