Mr. YATES. The State of Maryland cannot exelude an man in the U.S. who has in himsel the inherent rights. the Godiven rights of manhood and freedom. Maryland cannot do it, and Illinois cannot do it and all the power of the congress of the U.S. cannot do it, except y an amendment to the Constitution conferring upon Congress that power. I refer next to the same decision upon the question of the rights of citizens in the several States. I admit that accordiii to this decision every State had a right to exclude an African citizen, and the constitution of that State or the law of that State was notanti republican in its form; but when a man becomes acitizen of the U.S. he cannot be excluded by any State. I read from the same decision. page 428 of the same volume, where you will see that Chief Justice Taney was trying to show that all these State laws would be unconstitutional if the ne prowas a citizen, that he could come into the State in spite of the power of the constitution of the State and claim terights of a citizen, and the Chief Justice goes on to show what would be the consequences of such I. h"earwhen thein. a construction: I “If personsof the African race are citizens of a Stateand of the U.S. they would be entitled to all of these priVileges and immunities in every State and the Stuteeeuld not restrictthem: for they would hold these privileges and immunities underthe paramountauthority of the Federal Government and its courts would bebound to enforce them. the constitution and laws of theStateto the conlrary notwithstanding and if the States could limit or restrict them or place the party in an inferior grade this clause of the Constitution would be upmcanin and could haveno operation. and would give no rights to the citizen when in another State. He would have none but what the State itself choseto allow him. This is evidently not the construction or meaningof the clausein question. It guaranties rights to the citizen, and the State cannot withhold them." If the Senfrom Maine [Mr. Fasssxnizn] were now in his seat I would show him where the penalty is for such a law as I propose. Whenever a law in any State is unconstitutional the courts are bound to enforce the Constitution.There is the penalty. We can receive them or not receive their members elect of congress or members of the State Legislature. [here is penalty again and now, if such legislation is not absolutely necessary. yet it is highly expedient that at least adeclaratorylaw should be passed so that uniform construction and uniform obedience and submission to the Constitution may besecured from all the States. New. sir, I come to the other prepositiori, l l and it is equally clear, that neither Congress nor a State make a citizen, exec tthst congress may iiaturalize foreigners, an is founde on good sense and reason. I read now from page 419, Chief Justice Taueys decision: " The Constitution upon its adoptionobviouslytook from the Statesall powerby any subsequentlegislation to introduceasa citizen into the political family of the U.S.anyone.no matter where he was born or what might be his character or condition: and it gaveto Congress the powerto confer this characterupon thoseonly who were born outsideof the dominionsof the U.S. " The decision goes on to say that therefore no law of Congress or of any State can deprive a citizen of his rights. Sir, there was one view upon which this de cision did deprive the freedman of the right to vote. What was that? It was upon the same view that a woman is de rived of the right to vote. What was that? lgccause he could not come to the support of and defend the Government; and I have the decision of the Supreme Court here, which is irresistible on that point. lfa man can come to the support and defense of the Government, he is necessarily one of the body politic and one of the people of the U.S. Idwell upon these oiuts at some lengthknowing that they are to ious. but I am may ing them not only for the Senate but for the country. for it is the reflexinfluence of our great constituen eyon Congress to which [look for the passage of the bill I repose. In the same volume, page 415, the Chiet Justice cites the case of NewHampshire to show that the negroes were not citizens under the Constitution of the U.S., and gives as a reason that they were not enrolled in the militia of the U.S. Let us see what he says: “ The alien is excluded.because being born in a foreigncountry.he cannot be a memberof the community until he is naturalized; but why are the Af rican race.born in the State.not permitted to share in one of the highest duties of the citizen? The an swer is obvious. He is not by the institutions and laws of the State. Numbered among its cople. 110 formsno art of thesovereignt of the State, and is not there orecalled on to upho d and defendit." The moment the U.S.A. permitted the name of the freedman to be enrolled on that list of immortal names who bore the banner of the lie public in triumph, and planted its victorious folds upon the battleinent s of the enemy, this Government, by the reclamation of Abraham Lincoln. declaring that his freedom should be maintained, and by its pledge made to the civilized world, said that he should be not only a citizen in war but a citizen in peace. I know that we are met on ever hand by the argument that women are exclued from the right of suffrage. The answer to that is very ess and very plain. I am not proposing to amen the Constitution of the U.S.; and there is no power in the Constitution to confer the right of sudra e upon a woman. According to the spirit of the decision to which I have referred, and by the universal consent of man kind. she is not a part of the body politic so as to exercise the right of suffrage. Now, if these gallant gentlemen are so anxious to confer suffrage on the ladies, and have them mingle in the broils of parties and elections, let them bring in an amendment, and I am not sure that I will not vote for it. When it is asked why may she not vote since she is often a tax payer. I answer that there are restrictions which are inevitable. minority is such a restriction. Woman is excluded by the inevitable proprieties of the case. The ballot is in polities what the bayonet is in war. Those only who wield the sword are, by the universal consent of both ancient and modern civilization supposed capable of wielding the ballot. We should most certainly violate the proprieties of humanity were we to compel the softer sex to take part in the bloody work of physical warfare and yet, sir, to thrust woman into the arena of political strife is quite as abhorrent, and would be quite as destructive of her womanly qualities, as to compel her to take part in the Shock of arms. The only exception to the rule of ancient times, that woman should not bear arms, is to be found in traditions regarding the Amazons. They are represented a very warlike race of women as having deprived themselves of the right breast, that they might be the better able to wield the weapons of warfare. Would my friendfrom Missouri [Mr. Hsxuimsos] permit such an act of barbarity in the case of the elegant and maestic ladies of his State, so remarkable for their beauty and so irresistible in the fascination of their womanly charms? I know what his answer would be. Well, would he do what is worse, have her do morally what the Amazons did physically, by thrusting her into the strifes and stern conicts of polities and elections. part with those softer, more deli cate, more lovable qualities, which constitute her the ornament o society, and which, as Edmund Burke says, “inspire in man the highestand noblest passions of human life?” lam not proposing to amend the Constitution of the U.S. If any of the gentlemen who propose to amend the Constitution wish to display their gallantry, let them propose to amend it in this respect. There are some reasons which are applicable to them which are not applicable to the male portion of the people. They do not bear all the burdens of the government; do not work the roads; they do not fight in the Army. I come, then, to the question, how is a citizen of the U.S. made? How does a man become a citizen of the U.S.? Those who were citizens of the U.S. at the adoption of the Constitution were the people. c, the people, do ordain and establish this Constitution.” The words “ people” and “ citizen” are synonymous, as [have shown. Now, sir, I show that by the amendment to the Constitution of the U.S. the former slave has become a free man; his disability is removed; he is no longer one of a subject race; he cannot be bought and sold; he steps from his condition of slavery into the family of freedom, becomes one of the body politic, and is one of the sovereign people. An, sir, if no State can make him a citizen, and if the Congress of the U.S. cannot make him a citizen, except through an alteration of the Constitution so as to confer upon Congress the power, then he never can be a citizen except through the operation of the recent amendment, and eand his descendants forever must be deprived of this great right of franchise. Sir, they are citizens, or they are slaves. They are subjects, or they are sovereigns. This is exclusively a white mans Government, or it is a Government for all men. What, then, is the objection to passing the bill for which I contend? It is evident that you cannot confer freedom upon the slave without exercising your power under the Constitution. If you go before the people with constitutional amendments they Will be voted down in the slave States and in some of the free States. The result will be that the people, determined to do justice to this class of men, will find the power where it properly belongs, in the constitutional amendment securing to them freedom, and in the subsequent clause which makes it the duty of Congress to enforce by appropriate legislation the prohibition of slavery and to secure full freedom, civil and political, to all citizens. Why will we not manfully meet the issue, and exercise the power we already have, and by a general law of Congress enforce the provision of the Constitution in all the States alike in Illinois and Tennessee, in Maine and in SCarolina? I deny the conclusion of the Senfrom Missouri that there is reason to believe the Supreme Court, even under the hard ruling of the Dred Scott case, would decide the law unconstitutional. What court, after the Dred Scott decision, will again incur the infam of all history by such a decision as this would be against justice and the enlightened convictions of the wise and good everywhere? I know what the politicians objection is. The politicians objection is, “ Why take this out of the hands of the people of the States?” Sir, we do not take it out of the hands of the people of the States. The people of the States have by the Constitution conferred the power upon us; they have placed the responsibility upon us; an they Wlll brand us with moral cowardice if, waiting to pass amendments which never can be adopted, we fail to exercise the power which we clearly have. I like the amendment of the Senfrom Misssouri, [Mr. Hsxnsusox, but it can never be adopted. But lam op use to it because we have already the power in the Constitution to do the same thing. Is there any statesman here who dares rise in his place and say that we have the right to secure to the freedman all his civil rights, to give him the right to enforce contracts, to testify and be a party to suits, to acquire, hold, and dispose of property, but cannot secure him in his most essential the right by which he protects himself irnifit, the enjoyment of all his civil rights, of his person of his family, his life, and his reputation? I say, sir, that you cannot abolish slavery, you cannot secure freedom to the slave unless, by appropriate legislation, you pass a bill to give him that freedom in all the States and Territories of the U.S. Sir, let gentlemen come forward and meet the issue like men. Let them come forward and do what they have by the Constitution the clear power to do, an that is a sinequanon in order to carry into effectthe constitutional prohibition of slavery. As for me, I would rather face the music and meet the responsibility like a man and send to the people of the State of Illinois the boon of universal suffrage and of a full and complete emancipation than meet the taunt of northern demagogues that I would force suffrage upon NCarolina and tennessee and elseware while I had not the cour age to prescribe it for our own free States. Sir. it will e the crime of the century ifnow, having the power, us we clearly have, we lack the nerve to of the work that is given us to do. Let me say to my Republican friends, you are too late. You have gone too far to recede now. 4 million people, one 7th ofyoiir whole population, you have set free. Will you start back appalled at the enchantment your own wand has called up? The sequences of your own teachings are upon you. As for me, [start not back appalle when universal suffrage confronts me. When the bloody host of slavery rises, I so, “ Shake your gory ocks at me; I did it.” Taccept the situation. I tight not against the lo ic of events or the de crees of Providence. expected it, sir, and I meet it half way. frage. I bid it “all hail!” “all hail!” 4 million people set free! What will protect them? The ballot. What alone will give us a peaceful and harmonious South? The ballot to all. What will quench the fires of dis cord, give us back all the States, a restored Union, and make us one people? The ballot, and that alone. Is there no other way? None other under the sun. There is no other salvation. Senators, go to the country with it. Write it upon the sky. Inscribe it upon your banners, and hang them on the outer walls. It is the flaming symbol of victory. Sir, tell me not that “the people will vote us down on this proposition. Address that argument to cowards. “With the free and the brave it avails nothing." You give the white rebel the right to tax the loyal freedman, and to impose whatever bur dens he pleases upon him, and you call that freedom. Liberty without equality is no boon. Talk not to me of civil without political emancipation! It is the technical Reading of the law yer: it is not the enlarge view of the states I am for universal suffrage If a man has no vote for the men and the measures which tax himself, his family and his property and all which determine his re utution, that man is still a slave. You say that the citizen may have all his rights, to testify in courts, to enforce contracts, to acquire and dispose of property; but he shall nothave his most essential right, the right to vote, because, you say, the right to vote is not a natural or a civil right, but a political right. Suppose that is gtrue: what of it? It is a distinction without a difference. It is asecial plea, and too narrow for statesmanship. The only way to give effect to your constitutional amendment the only practical way is to exercise the power which you have to secure ever right, natural, civil, political, to all the peopfe. I here positively any that we chn give effect to the constitutional amendment giving freedom to the slave, and yet debar him of the only weapon with which he can protect himself in that freedom. Emancipation, in the light of our Government, means not only the breaking of the chains of slavery, not only destroying the statusof the slave, but it means conferring upon him every right which eve American citizen. enjoys. The legislation which secures the bal lot is the only “apprOpriate” legislation. Your Freedmens Bureaus are well enough as a tem porary measure; but ifgou will give the freedman the ballot, he nee s no such law. Give him equality in fact, the law will follow. The laws as they are for all other persons will be. all he needs. Give. him the ba lot, and he will become an identified element in society, and the politicians who now jeer and deride him, who point to his infirmitics. will pander to him, and he will become self sustaining. Sir, the ballot will finish the negro question; it will settle everything connected with this question. Give the freedmen the ballot, and we need no Freedmens Bureau, we need no military regime, we need no vast expenditures, we need no standing army. The ballot will be his standing arm. The ballot is the cheap and impre nable ortress of liberty. I may be pardoned or quoting the oft quoted stanza: " There is a weapon surer yet and betterthan the bayonet; A weaponthat comesdown asstill As snow flakcs fall uponthesod and executes afree mans will As lightning does the will of God: A weapon that no bolts nor locks Can bar it is the ballotbox." The ballot will lead the freedman over the Red sea of our troubles. It will be the brazen ser ent, upon which he can look and live. It will be his pillar of cloud by day and his pillar of fire by night. It will lead him to Pisgahs shining cig t, and across Jordans stormy waves, to Canaans fair and happy land. Sir, the ballot is the freedmans Moses. man is concerned, Imight sa that Mr. Lincoln was the Moses of the free man 5 but who ever shall be the truest friend of human freedom, whoever shall write his name highest upon the horizon of public vision as the frien of human liberty, that man and Iho e it may bethe present POTUSwill be the Joshua to lead the people into the land of deliverance. Mr. President, there is one clause of the constitution which I confess, when I commenced examining the Constitution to find this power in favor o equality, seemed to me an objection to the exeicise of power which I have proposed, and thatis this clause in section two. nrtic e one: “The HoRep shall he composed of memberscliosen every 2nd year, by the peoplo of the severalStates, and the clcotors in eachState shall have the qualifications requisitefor electors oi the mostnumerousbranchof theState Legislature." If there was an force in that provision of the Constitution hefore the present amendment was adopted, there is none now. If the States could exclude an elector or any citizen from the right of suffrage before the adoption of the amendment, they cannot do so now, and why? Because the amendment being the last SO for as clause insertedin the Constitution, repeals every former clause in conflict with it. It is the subsequent organic act of the people, and by the iidoption of this amendment every free man becomes one of the pee lo, a citizen of the U.S., and no Begislature has any power to disfranchise him. It has the right to regulate the qualifications of whom? Of elect ors; of those men who have a right to vote; of those men who do vote. It can restrict them by certain limitations and qualifications. But does the word “regulate ” imply a power to destroy, or does it mean to preserve? The word " reg ulate” means to make rules. Its derivation is from the Latin word regula, a rule. It is to prescribe qualifications for the citizens, for those who are entitled to vote, but there is no power whatever to destroy the rights of a citizen or to disfranchise a citizen; and though the freedman might have been disfranchised before the amendment, because not then a citizen, he is now a citizen by the operation of the amendment, and there is no power in the State to disfrauohise him. Mr. Clay, when he contended that Congress, under the power in the Constitution “ to regulate commerce ” among the several States, “ had the right and the power to build up.commerce, to establish lines of steamers between this country and foreign countries, and to build railroads between the several States, ” never claimed that under that power “to regulate commoree” congress had a right to destroy comIlluice. An there was one universal opinion a“mong the Democratic party that the word regulate” simply meant to prescribe the rules and regulations by which commerce already in existence should be carried on. This clause means that the States shall determine, not who shall vote, but when, how, and where the elect ors shall vote, and that it may determine the time and place and manner in which they shall vote, and impose restrictions, not disfranchisement. I can make this question plain to anyone. I ask the Senfrom Oregon whether the legislature of the State of regon can ever disranchise him can ever deprive him of his God given right of suffrage? I ask the Senfrom Minnesota whether there is any power in that State to deprive me of the right of franchise if I remove there? Is there any power to deprive any of my descendants of that right? Is there any power to do rive any of the people of the U.S. of tlriht right? If the power exists, and it can exclude me, may it not exclude 1/2 or 3/4ths of the people, and leave the governing power in the bans of an oligarchy? I ask you whether the State of SCarolina can have a provision that no Yankee shall vote in that State? If they could, they would adopt it with a will and a vengeance. Can any State in this Union decide that no German shall exercise the right of suffrage? I very much doubt the constitutionality of the law of Mas such usetts, which says that the German shall not vote untillie can read the English language, because that may amount to a virtual disfranchisement of some. [can say that it would be a very inexpedient law anyhow, for some of the best voting that is done in this country is pure unadulterated German. Suppose that Brigham Young should organize a sort of imperium in. imperio inUtali, and after that State was admitted into the Union the Legislature should decide that none but disciples of the Mormon faith should vote, or, as all tests of religion are excluded by the Constitdtion, suppose that State were to decide that no man who ad not 2 wives should be allowed the right of suffrage, would it not be the duty of congress to interfere and protect the right of the citizens who may go into that State? I willask anot or question. Suppose ashas often been the case, a white man isdeclared a slave and he becomes free, is there any power in thestate of maine or any otherState in this Union to disfranchise him, to take away from him entirel the right of suffrage? You will answer, no. Wel, sir, oes the tinge of complexion alter the inalienable, the intrinsic, the inherent, the God given rights of the American citizen? I admit that the States may prescribe qualifications, not to destroy but to preserve the elective franchise of the free man. There maybe regis try laws to protect the purity of the ballot and to prevent frauds; the mine r under 20 onc years of age may be excluded. ln the very nature of things there must be a period of majority affixed to infancy; but do you deprive that mine r of the right to vote altogether? No, sir. “Dormitur aliquandojus, morilur nunquam" “the right may sleep, but it dies never.” But there is another point in this article one, section 2, to which I desire to call attention. Observe that the clause reads: “The HoRep, " he" "shall be chosen every 2nd year by the peopleof the several States." Now, who are the people of the several States?. they not the whole p people? If there are i a people in the several States notincluded in this clause, who are they? But Judge Taney says that people and citizens are synonymous and it has been universally understood that the people of the States means all male citizens thereof over 21 ears of age. There is no limitation in the wor s of the Constitution, and there can have been none, if by the people that formed the Constitution was meant the whole people of all the States, granting the exception as to the subject race, as above, according to the DredScott decision. But that exception no longer existing, then the words “people of the several States” must and do mean the whole people thereof, mine rs and women excepted. Mr. President, I had intended, in the course of these remarks, to present my views against that class of legislation which is designed to secure what is called intelligent suffrage. I shall not now argue the point, but will merely say that I am unalterably o posed to any legislation whatever which shall dbtermine the rights of the citizen by any test of wealth, intelligence, birth, or rank. I wish to say to my Remb lican Union friends that whenever they a mit that principle, the test of intelligence, they admit away their argument. If we prescribe intelligence for the negro and not for the white man, it is unequal, it is class legislation. That is not the Shibboleth of equality of rights for all, which you have been crying. Well, if we apply it to all who cannot read or write, we exclude a large portion of our fellow citizens who have always since the foundation of the Government, for 85 years past, exercised the right of sutlra e, and exercised it well. Wh now excludc them? Why, to reach the case of the poor free man, and in order to inflict a tyrannous and barbarous restriction upon him, exclude those who for 80 five years have exercised the right of suffrage, and exercised it well? Sir, such a proposition as that cannot obtain five votes in any western Legislature. The party which commits itself to an exclusion of those men, who for 85 years have excrcised this inestimable right of free men, is already doomed, and ought to be doomed forever I am not opposed to intelligence. I believe that intelligence and virture are the rock bound foundations of our national prosperity and our national perpetuity. But if the success of our, institutions depends more upon the one than the otherandI think they are inseparable for this purpose it depends more on virtue. The poor loyal slave of the South was more religious and more loyal than his slavemaster, and almost as intelligent, perhaps, as the mass of the whites themselves. While I believe it might possibly be safe for the country to permit all to vote, I do not think it would be safe for the country to exclude either class altogether, or any large mass of the people. I believe in the foundation theories of gur Government, that there is more intelligence and more virtue in all the people than in any part of the people. That is the doctrine for which I contend. I contend that the strong common sense of the populace of America isa safe element in this Government. The ballot is the greatest educator. Let a man have an interest in the Government, a voice as to the men and measures by which his taxes, his property, his life, and his reputation shall be determined, and there will be a stimu lus to education for that man. As the elective franchise has been extended in this country we have seen educatibn become more universal. Look throughout all our northern States at our schools and colleges, our Academics of learning, our associations; the pulpit, the press, and the numerous agencies for the promotion of intelligence, all the inevitable off spring of our free institutions. Here is the training which inspires the eloquence ofhigha senate, the wisdom of the cabinet, the address of the diplomatist, and which has developed and brought to light that intelligent and ener getic mind which has elevated the character and contributed to the prosperity of the country. It is the ballot which is e stimulus to improvement, which fires the heart ofyouthful ambition, which stimulates honorable aspiration, which penetrates the thick shades of the forest, and takes the poor rail s litter by the hand and points him to the s ining height of human achievement, or which goes into the log but of the tailor boy and opens to him the avenue to the residential mansion. Tiiere will be risk, it is said, in so much ignorance in the body of electors. Has there not always been risk? Will there not always be risk in every democratic Government? Has not Europe poured annually her millions into our borders, some ofwhom cannot.read or write and some of whom cannot speak our language Have any of these Senators who propose to prescribe a qualification of intelligence ever thought of amending the naturalization. so as to require from foreigners that they shlaowulse read and write? Sir, the masses may err, but it is not to their interest to err. If they do err, they are always ready to correct the mistakes which possiouand prejudice have brought upon them. But how is it with an aristocracy? look at this mournful illustration; look at the rebellion of the educated slave oligarchy of the South; look at the devastations of the bloody war which resulted from that rebellion. History, upon many a dark and bloody page, gives sad and mournful evidence that the limitation of the powers of Government to the educated oligarchy or to an individual has resulted in wicked machinations against the welfare of the people, in the decay of empire, in bloody wars, leaving fearful devastations in the track of time. Why, sir, I will say that there has been in all time no usurpation, no conspiracy against the rights of the free men, except upon the spe cious pleaof superiorintelligence in the usurper or conspirators. We shall have to risk something. So we shall, sir, and we must trust that one ignorant force will counterpoise another in the future as it has in the past. But, sir, if we prescribe intelligence as a iide, what grade oIfintelligence shallwe have? Vhen we “0 ose to say that a man who can barely rend anfiwrite shall vote, suppose I move to amend your proposition, adding rat the man who understands English grammar and the ground rules of arithmetic alone Shell vote; suppose I move to amendby saying that he shail have a liberal common school education; sup were I move to amend by saying that he sh l have raduated with academic honors. Sir, that is the argument ad absurdum. The only safe rule is to extend the franchise to all, that all the virtue, all the intelligence, all the practical common sense, all the wisdom, and all the learning of all the people shall be employed in the administration of the affairs of the Government. I admit that there are restrictions which, as I have said, are inevitable; the must. be continued, and must be made applicable to all. They are the mere regulation of the suffrage. I was never a “NativeAmerican, ” although much of the foreign vote was cast against the old Whig party to which I belonged; at I am like the noble old Senfrom Ohio [Mr. Wantt] when he said. “I am willing to give to every man every right that I possess, " and if by meritorious endeavor. if y playing well my part, if by developing any moral and intellec tual faculties, I can attain to nihigher position of eminence than he, then give me credit. for it: but to what praise am I entitled if my suprior fortune is the result of exclusive privileges which I deny to my unfortunate fellow citizens? I wish it distinctly understood that in all I have said here I am no one idea man. had “negro on the brain." always fight with the people and for the people. Inever belonged to the Wendell Phillips or Gerritt Smith party. [do not say this from want of respect forthem, for they were noble pioneers in the cause of human liberty; but lam for the black man, not as a black man; I am for the white man. not as a white man. but I am for man irrespective of race or color; I am for Gods humanity here, elsewhere, and everywhere. Sir, Mr. Lincoln never said so beautiful a thingin all hislife, according to myjudgment, as when he said, “ In giving freedom to the slave we assure freedom to the free.” If we would reserve freedom for ourselves and our posterity, let us see to it that all are free, that there are no warring, wrangling, discordant races or classes out of which is to "row a future conflict of races, future war, and nal disunion. My distinguished friend on my left, Mr. Davts] the compeer of Mr. Clay and Mr. ritzeuden, for whom I have such high respect, r noted from numerous authors to show that the freedmen belonged to an inferior race, to which I refer for this reason: if the Senfrom Kentucky, the loyal and patriotic Senfrom Kentucky, through the prejudices of education, can, with almost barbarous cruelty, parade, in long array, authorities from historians to show that the negro is an inferior race and not entitled to equal privileges with the white man, what may we not expect from the southern rebels whom negro valor has chastised, and whose secession principles negro votes shall yet vote down? Mr. Lincoln made another beautiful remark in his letter to Governor Hahn. He said: "In sometrying time the vote of the black man may serveto keep the jewel of liberty in the family of random." Sir, the time may arrive when the southern slaveholders and their northern sympathizers may come so near having the control of the Government, that the l0 al black vote may be the balance of power an east the scale in favor of Union and liberty. If universal suffrage is wrong, our Government is wrong. I am willing to conform to the principles of my Government wherever they may lead. If it turns out, as I fondly hope it may not, that our fathers were wrong, and that our people are incapable. of self government, and hat a wealthy few, an intelligent few, or a single monarch ought to govern them, I cannot help it, but that is not. the principle for which I am fighting. Inm fighting to carry out to its legitimate conclusion, to its logical sequence; what I believe to be the decree of almighty (10d that all men are created equal. Gentlemen ask me “ ifI will go beforethe people of Illinois with such a proposition as this.” Ay, indeed, and welcome it. I have no fear of the result. Through the clouds of the present I see the brightness of the future. here is, deep seated in the hearts of the American people everywhere, the firm conviction that this negro question, however unpalatable its [never, [Laughter] I Apportionment of Representation Mr. Henderson. discussion may be, will never be settled until it is adjusted upon the principle of justice and equality. Sir, I can see now plainl the beginning of the end. I now scethe apot eosisof that living principle which fled the pesccutions of the 01 Vorl: which sought a ome amidst the sterile rocks of NewEngland; which remonstrated against taxation without representation; which exhibited itsopposition to c pass legislation upon the bloody fied of Bunker Hill, and which finally cuminated in the greatest and most majestic and dominant idea of the world the Declaration of American Independence. Sir, I am a man of the people; 25 years of public service made me believe that I understand something of the temper and disposition of the people; and I am here today to say that it is my conscientious conviction that if every Senator on this floor and eve Representative in the other House and the resident of the U.S. should with united voices attempt to oppose this grand consummation of universal equnlity, they will fail. It is too late for that. Ton may go to the head waters of the Mississippi and turn off the little rivnlets, i but you cannot go to the mouth, after it has collected its waters from1,000 rivers and with accumulated volume is caring its foaming waters into the Gulf, and ) say Thus far shalt thou go, and no further.” Politicians may choose their course; they may become frightened at the radical march of events; they may throw pebbles into the mighty current of popular opinion. But the grand old river of progress, of liberty and humanity, and Gods eternaljustice, willrol] on. Gentlemen may erect altars to conservatism; but they will go down to that vortexinto which so many compromisers, Union savers, and conserva tives have already gone “ that bournc whence no political adventurer ever returns." Sir, I care not who the man may be then by he be a Senator upon the floor or the resident of the U.S., however high his title or proud his name, if he is false to human freedom “the places which know him now shall soon know imno more forever l" I remember well what the noble old Senfrom Ohio [Mr. Wane] said in his speech; how he was threatened with the anathemas of public vengeance when he was in a slim and hated minority; but, thank Cod, he still lives to look on the ves of his political opponents and revilcrs. having fouggt the fight, having kept the faith, and come upthrough eat tribulation, he is not here to surrender the citadel of liberty to a few guerrilla bands and the raw recruits who are wasting their ineffectual fires upon the fortifications which have withstood unshakcn the roar and thunder of the whole pro slavery army. I, sir, though a younger man, have a similar excrience. I stood side by side with the noble Jiucoln in every phase of these questions. I have fun ht the fight and lived to enjoy the delightful pleasure of telling the last Legislature of my State to sweep with a speedy, resistless hand the black laws from our code and they did it. They did not alter, modify, or amend them, but they eviscerated them, body and soul, from the statute book, and scattered their black and blood stained leaves upon the simoom of popu, lar indignation. Sir, what made Abraham Lincoln POTUS? I know he was good, very good; he was great, ver great, in all those qualities which constitute t. e statesman; but it was his persistent advocacy of the doctrines of the Declaration O American Independence, in his debates with Stephen A. Douglas, in his speeches at the Cooper Institute in NewYork, in Connecticut, and in Kansas it was his clear definition of the principles of human freedom; it was those God inspired words“This Union cannotpermanentlysndurohalfslave and half free: the Union will not be dissolved.but the housewill ceaseto be divided"it was this which riveted the attention of the nation, and made him POTUS and why, sir? Because, despite the prejudices of education, which we all have, despite centuries of wron and oppression, there is somewhere, away own in he depths of the human soul and that soul is deeper than oceans; it is like infinite space and has no boundaries there is somewhere in the unfath omable depths of the human soul the love of liberty m the hatred of oppression. That chor Lincoln struck, and thus made himself President and his name immortal. Why are on Senators here from every northern State? sit because you are able men? But you are not the only able men in your States. There are men distinguished for great ability and illus trious service in your States. You are here, because you have been true to truth, to justice, to liberty, and to equal laws. It is too late to change the tide of human progress. The enlightened convictions of the masses, wrought by the thorough discussions of 30 years, an consecrated the baptism of precronsblood, cannot now be changed. The hand of a higher power than mans is in this revolution, and it will not move backward. It is of no use to light against destiny. God, not man, created men equal. Deep laid in the solid foundations of God s eternal throne, the principle of equality is established, indestructible and immortal. My way to settle our national troubles is to punish some traitors, not for the sake of venge ance, but for the sake of example. There ought to be some example made in order to inculcate the idea that treason is acrime in this country, and that it will be punished. I would then extend pardon to all terebel masses; I would withhold it from the leaders of the rebel lioa. I would confer upon the freedmen, made free by the Constitution and laws of the land, universal suffrage. Mr. President, as I said in a speech on the 4th day of July last and I wish to repeat it here now, to show that these are no new formed opinions I say again: “This is the geniusof our Government. I amwilling to trust the people; and I believe that our government, founded upon the will of all. protectedby the powerof all and mulntniniu the rights of all, will survive the stormsof civil an externalconvulsion, and growing in a grandeur and power, will be comeone of the mightiestnations on the face of the earth. Therefore] umopposedto slavery and seem!sion, far an undivided Union. for universal freedom, and universal suffrage.” Senators, 60 centuries of the past arelooking down upon you. All the centuries of the future are calling upon you. Liberty, strug gling amid the rise and wrecks of empires 1n the past, and yet to struggle for life in all the nations of the world, conjures you to seize this great opportunity which the providence of Almighty (rod has placed in your hands to bless the world and make your names immortal, to carry to afull and triumphant consummation the great work begun by your fathers, and thus lay permanently, solidly, and immovabl the cap stone upon the pyramid of human liberty. {End of Yates speech from Appendix.}