Mr. JOHNSON. There is nothing to ask pardon for. I am obliged to the honorable member for interrupting me at any time. I was about to say, before coming regularly to the consideration of the subject to which the honorable member draws my attention, that he will of course recollect that I have stated more than once that the bill upon which he now relies is unconstitution al. As far as it is an authority, with me it has no weight whatever except that weight which belongs to the respect I habitually ay to the opinions of the Senate when they appen to diger from my own. But even supposing it to be within the power of Congress to pass a law of that kind, it y no means follows that I think it has power to pass a law placing all the inhabitants of the States on the same political ound. When the honorable member from Massachusetts interrupted me for a purpose of which of course I do not complain, I was asking whether it was right or proper to do this thing in the way proposed. The JtCommee reported an amendment to the constitution; and Ihhink perhaps none of them is of the opinion that it can be done in any other way than by a change of the constitution; certainl that is my own opinion. If it be rightthatsuc a change should be effected by a constitutional provision, is it not properthat it should be accomplished ip that way, instead of accomplishing it indirectly? Why is it that we are afraid to trust the people? Are Senators on that side of the Chamber afraid to trust the people of their respective States with the decision of this question; and if they are apprehensive, what is the ground of their apprehension? That they believe it would not be sanctipned. They have reason to believe that they have the numbers now which will enable them to adopt this amendment, and that the consequence of this amendment will be to elieet what they desire in the southern States without its producing the slightest effect in the northern States. I had hoped, Mr. President, that the time had passed when we were to esteem ourselves as different peoples. Our fathers esteemed us as one. The constitution deals with us as one. As one the Government from its organization has been conducted. All of our triumphs in the field and in the council, upon the land and upon the ocean, have been won by us as one and I ask if it is not a mischievous proposition that Senators are unwilling to leave a change of the constitution, which they propose to accomplish indirectly, to the peep c of the several States? Can it be for any other reason than that it would not be adopted? Would Connecticut adopt it? Recently she voted against that change in her own State by casting a majority of 2,906x against it. Would Minnesota adopt it? She voted against it by a majority of 8,685. Would Wisconsin adopt it? Her vote against it was a majority of 17, 539. Do you think they will change their Opinion? Do you not know that they have not changed? and yet so far as the result is concerned upon the influence of the representation of those States in the councils of the nation, it would be as nothing compared with the result which it would have upon the State of Maryland and other southern States. How, then, do you propose to accomplish it? You say to States situated like mine, We will reduce your representation if you do not let your negroes vote. We will not permit ours to vote, an you cannot present to us an inducement which will lead us to let ours vote; we have considered that question already, and we have decided it by a judgment which we have no idea of reversing; but we will put it to you in such a shape that unless you agree to it, the number of your representatives in the halls of Congress will be very sensibly diminished!” Would you, gentlemen, do you think you wouldI do not ask you to say now at once, any of you, but. when you come cooll to reflect upon the operation of a provision oft is description would either of you agree to vote for it if the influence of it on your States was to be the same as it will be upon some of the southern States? Would you do it if we changed places? If in the dispensation of Providence the 3 million negroes were to find a home within the northern States and separated equally as among all the northern States, is there any man within the hearing of my voice who will coolly reflect upon the subject, who will not come to the conclusion that no representative from a northern State Would venture to support a proposition which would diminish the representation of his State and relatively increase the representatien of the sister States? Iapprehen not. It is because the proposed measure does not affect you as it affects us, that you may safely vote for it. It is because, whether it be adopted or not, your power and your influence in the Government remain the same, it having no operation upon you, but operating and designed to operate exclusively upon us. Nobody has a higher esteem than myself for the members of the committee reporting this measure, whom I have the pleasure personally to know. I know that they are governed by what they believe to be pure motives. They think the denial of the right of suffrage to the blacks of the southern States is calculated to injure the whole country. They have brought themselves to believe that the possession of the right of suffrage by the blacks will promote the safety and quiet of the count. In my opinion it is a sad mistake. It is a sa mistake for both. It is a mistake in reference to the blacks to be found within the southern limits, and with reference to the whites. It is a still greater mistake, if possible, to the people of t 10 other States. We have come out of this war with an immense debt, to meet which will require all the energies of the Government. There is not a foot of land that we should not have cultivated in order to enable us to meet our engagements. The peculiar productions of the South above all should be promoted. You think, perhaps. there is nothing in this measure which will interfere with either. I think you are sadly mistaken. Leave the blacks as they are, protected by the constitution of the U.S. in every right which belongs to a free man, entitled to claim the benefit of all the guarantees of personal liberty and protection to be found in the constitution of the U.S., as much as the white man. Leave him to work for his living, as the white man works for his living. Leave him free to contract, as he is. Leave him under the protection of laws that will enable him to enforce his contracts, as he is. Leave him to educate himself, as far as nature will permit, until he can raise himself to the elevation of the white race, as I think he may; and then, if possible, change your organic law; then, if possible, for yet that nature has madopthe distinction. The God of the white man and the God of the black manI speak it with due reverence is the Bein who 1st made a distinction on account of color. Why was the negro created black? It is beyond the ken of man to ascertain. Why were we created white? Is not the mere difference in color sufficient to warnus that Heaven designed a difference? and have not some of you acted on the fact that there is such a difference? Why is that separate places for the respective races even in your own Chamber? Why are they not put together? There is not a man within the sound of m voice certainly 1 am not onewho has any ecling against the black race. There is nothing in the world that I am capable of doing that 1 would not do to elevate them. In a professional life of now more than 50 years duration, I never failed to give them the benefit of my advice and services. But I feel with an instinct that na ture has planted within us, and they perhaps feel it as strongly as we do, that nature has created the distinction, and there it must remain as long as white is white and black is black. But by this amendment you not only seek to reduce (by a pealing to our supposed ove of power) the number of Representatives to which we are entitled, and forcing us thereby to yield our convictions, but you increase the amormt ofour taxation. The constitution said that the mode of ascertaining taxation shall be the same as the mode of ascertaining representfiion. That mode was to deduct 2 fi ths from that portion of the population which was held in a state of servitude. You have done away with that provision. You therefore now say that unless we agree to let every black man vote who possesses the qualification ofage the whole number of the race is to be deducted in the basis of representation; but when we come to the question what proportion of taxes we are to pay, the whole number, instead of 3/5ths, is to be counted, so that the operation of the amendment is to diminish representation and increase taxation. Is that right? I think and I have suggested it in another place, that the true rule would be to apportion representation according to voters, and taxation according to wealth. That is fair; that operates alike everywhere. What does California do? What does Oregon do? What does Nevada do? They exclude the Chinese altogether; and yet they are counted in the basis of representation. They form a part of the basis upon which those States claim to be representeg in congress. But we, instead of having Chinamen whom we will not permit to vote, have colored men; and because they are colored we lose representation while you retain it, because your Chinamen are not “colored” in the sense in which the term "colored" is used. Now, I ask Nevada and Oregon if it is correct to claim for themselves one rule and to exact as against us another.