Mr. FESSENDEN. I was not aware of that; but I know that the practice in England is as I have stated; that is, I have been told so. It is not for me to say which of these 2 kinds of debate is the best. I can only say that ifa man is lookinv to future a es, making history, and wants to cave somet lift" on record that will be creditable to him, perhaps the orationizing is vastly the best of the two. But I do not think that Senators who have not that am bition, and if they had, cannotexpect to gratify it, and are obliged to get along as they can, and do the best they can under the circumstances on the subject of debate, ought to be blamed very much if they are willing to content themselves with the little modicum of rentation they make in that way. Sir James ackin tosh said that these written orations proved nothing except the power of argument and imagination, and did not necessarily denote a capacity for affairs. That was his opinion. I presume he was influenced very much by the practice that prevailed in England, and with which he was most accustomc. There is another distinction that I should like to draw. There are 2 kinds of person alities in debate. One is a personality that is aimed directly at an individual in the heat of debate, when men are somewhat excited, when they cannot or do not stop to choose their words, and when sometimes things are said which are to he regretted. Another is a perlonality which dogs not aim at individuals, but aims at masses, numbers, confines itself to nobody, deals in epithets, deals in denunciation; does not pick out an individual who can reply to it on the spot; and is elaborated care fullyin the closet, full of all manner of bitter ness, but so expressed that no particular individual has a right to take it to imself. Both kinds of personality are deserving of reprehension. It ink the latter, inasmuch as it is cool, deliberated upon, the words chosen, exhibits vastly the most malice of this 2, more cer. tninly than the hasty words that escape one in the heat of argument. Having thus drawn my distinctions with regard to debate (and I suppose I am as well entitled to draw them as anybod else) I wish to call attention to the speech that under the head of argument was made by the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts. On this subject I think he has occupied about 8 or 9 hours of the time of the Senate, and on the last. occasion, while saying that principles were to be considered, he has undertaken to designate the character of this proposed amendment. I have already stated who t 10men were who were in favor it. What does the Senator call it? I have chosen a few, and but a few, flowers of rhetoric from the speech of the honorable senator: “compromise of human rights, ” “vio lating the national faith, ” “ dishonoring the name of the Republic, ” “ bad mutton, ” " new muscipiilarabortion, "“ anew anathema maran atha, " “abomination, ” “paragon and master piece of mgratitude, " “abortive for all good, "shocking to the moral sense, “the very h oh i noor of blackness, ” “essential uncleanliness, " “disgustin ordnre, ” “loathsome stench;” and the men who support it, if they pass it, will be “Harpies, ” “ Pontius Pilate, with Judas Is cariot on his back." I think I cannot do better than read a few extracs from the honorable Senators speech:. “Looking at this compromise in its most general aspect. it reminds me, if youwill pardon theillustration, of that le of mutton. Served for dinner on the road from long mto Oxford, which Doctor Johnson. With characteristic energy, described as bad as bad cSooutlhdibsc. ciollm pferdo, milli sked lTeaIdd, opiltl kept. apd ill dressed. the sayin of an emi nent friend. who insists that it cannot c called an taumtiocnn dtinscintst but rather a.detrimont to the Consti bad as bad can be: and even for its avowed purpose it is uncertain, loose.cracked and nekoty. Again: " Regarding it as a proposition from Congressto mcctthe unparalleled exigencics oi the presenthour. it is no betterthan the muscipular abortion sent into the world by the parturient mountain!” Thatis a specimen of composition that very feiv of us would attempt. Again: "Adopt this proposition, and on will be littlebetter than the foul I nrpies who cfiled the feast that wasspread. The Constitution is the feast ssrcad for our country, you are uow hurrymg to IZODIn") its text a political obscenity. and tospreadonits page a disgusting ordurc. " Defiling all you find and partih leave a loathsomestench behind. " and what do you think the honorable Senator calls this? He says: "If I use plain language it is because the occasion requires it." Plain language! Again: “It was no such thing. It was it compromise: and such is the precise character of the present proposition, which. by its very words is a plain license to a disgustingtyranny in consideration that the tyrants pay in political power. The primary elementin the case. which stands out in darkness visible, is liccusc; the the 2ndaryelement is the ay. Here is nothing less than amighty House of Ill aine.which it is proposedto license constitutionally for a political consideration." I will note no more of these flowers of rhet oric. T ie application of these phrases and epithets to a proposition coming from a committee of the Senators own political friends and most of them his persona friends, one of them certainly his very intimate friend and colleague, passed by more than 2/3rds of the HoRep, among whom were the greater number of his own colleagues in that House, supported by a large majority of this Senate, among whom is his colleague who sits by my side, not applied in the heat of debate, but prepared in the closet, printed, the proof corrected, and brought in iiere to be retailed before the country upon the men with whom he is associated, is a matter the ropi iety of which must be left to himself to jii go. I only allude to the fact that such is the attack made upon this body and upon the HoRep. Now, sir, I come to the question itself and to parts of it which I cannot permit to pass out without being accompanied more or less with a little comment. Mr. President, what is the present state of this question? In the 1st place, how does the l right of suffrage stand now and how would it stand after the passage of this amendment, if it should be passed! There are 2 provisions of the Constitution which have a material bearing upon the question under consideration: “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States whichuiny be includedwithiuthis Union. According to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by ading to one i the whole number of free persons. including t onudniadntsonsoetrtvai exeedfo, rthareteerfmifthosf oyfeaalrlso. athnedrepxecrlsuodninsg. That is the way the Constitution stands now. That is the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 1st article. The 1st clause of that section is in these words: “The HoRepshall be composed of members chosenevery2ndyear by the people of the several States: and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electorsof the mostnumerous branchof the State Legislature." If I understand the Constitution at all. it has always been considered that the clause which I last read acknowledged the right of the States to regulate the question of sodium. I do not think it has ever been disputed. That is a matter assumed, that as the Constitution stands now in its written text it is the right of the several States to fix the qnalification of voters. The 1st clause that I read apportions Representatives accordin to population, with one or 2 exceptions. ow, these "3/5ths of all other persons” have become free, and according to the argument of the honorable Senfrom Maryland, which perhaps I should not dispute, it is simply ine perative with regard to them. There may be no persons who come within the exception. Whatis it, then? How does the clause stand? ltis conceded that the power exists in the States to fix the qualifications of voters. It reads thus: “ Representativesand direct taxes shall be apportioned among thoscveral Stateswhich may be included within this Union according to their respective numbers." Leaving out that which has become obsolete. Now, whatis this resolution? Leaving out the words “ and direct taxes, ” for we do not propose to meddle with that, it is this: " Representatives shall be apportioned among the severa States which may be included within this Union according to their respective numbers counting the whole number of personsin eachState. excluding Indians not taxed. In totidem verbis precisely the language of the Constitution as it stands now. It is merely redrawn, leaving out. that part of it which was considered to have become obsolete. Under that, will any Senator dispute and I address myself to the honorable Senfrom Illinois, [Mr. Yarssj that the States have, as the Constitution stands today, the perfect to fix the qualifications of voters, and thatrtight is art of the proposition which [have read leaves it just as it was before, and does not change it? Very well. Suppose we strike out that portion of the proposition; it is nothing but repetition; it is the old form; and the old form is just 08 good unless you wish to add something more to it. Then how would the proposition to amend stand ( It would stand precisely in this way: Whenever the elective franchise shall be denied or abridgedin any State on account of raceor all persons of such race or color shall be exccluodlt:i from the basisof representation. Take that as a substantive proposition by itself; the other is nothing; it is mere repetition. The States have a perfect right today, and they may exercise it as they see fit, to make such rules as suit them without regard to the qualifieations of electors; and there is no power in congress, leaving out the ar nment of the Senfrom lllinois with regar to the power derived under the new provision abolishing slavery, to interfere with that right; at least, there is nothing in the Constitution about it. Then what we propso to add to the constitutional provision is simply this: Whenever the elective franchise shall be denied or abridged in any Stateon account of raceor all persons of such race or color shall be excclnodlt:l from the basisof representation.