Mr. BOYER. Mr. Speaker, however atrocious some gentlemen in this House may pronounce the sentiment that this is a white mans Government, and although I have lately heard inthI shall even the spirit of the illustrious dead condemned to everlasting fire for denying while upon earth the equality of the races, I am constrained notwithstanding to assume the responsibility of a respectful but firm and earnest opposition to this bill. I am opposed to it, sir, not only upon special and local grounds, but also upon the broad general principle that this is, an of right ought to be, a white mans Government. Sir, it is proposed by this bill to confer the elective franchise upon the colored population of the DistCol, and to elevate at once, without any qualification or preparation, a heterogeneous mass of about 30,000 negroes and mulattoes to a complete political equality with the white inhabitants. It is proposed to do this, too, in opposition to the known wishes of a large majority of the citizens of the District, and in the face of an election held here only a few days ago in which the vote against negro suffrage was nearly unanimous. n the 2 corporations composing the DistCol the vote polled stood as follows: Washington. Against negro suffrage. for negro suffrage. 6,55635 Total vote. 61291 Georgetown Against negro suffrage. For negro suffrage. Total vote It is in vain to say that this election was not ordered by competent authority, and ought therefore be disregarded. No matter by what authority it took place, it was the expression of popular sentiment by a vote larger than is usually polled at the ordinary municipal elections. In the city of Washington it exceeded by 871 votes the aggregate vote cast at the last election for mayor in 1864; and is in excess over the preceding vote for mayor, in 1862 as many as 1, 775. It cannot therefore be sai that the election was not a full expression of public opinion on the part of the voters of the city of Washington and so unanimous was this popular verdict that the result would not be changed if you were to count against the majority all the colored inhabitants who, if the present bill were a law would probably be entitled to a vote. I do not dispute the power of Congress to regulate the elective franchise within the limits of the DistCol. But I do den the moral right of Congress to pass this bill opposed as it is to the will of the people, up therefore in violation of the fundamental principle of popular government. Gentlemen who represent States upon this floor profess. 1 presume, one and all, to represent the sentiments of, their constituents in all matters which relate to the local interests of their respective districts. If it were possible for Congress to legislate in any matter touching the municipal government of their constituencies, how eloquent and earnest would they all be in opposition to any measure manifestly contrary to the expressed will of the majority represented by them in this House. But are we not also the representatives of the people of the DistCol? Does not the law make us the guardians of their rights as fully as if we were dependent upon their votes I In becoming their leglslators, we have assumed at the same time the sacred duty of applying to them those princples of republican government which the constitution has guarantied to all the States. Tyrannlze over them indeed, we f power, and mag, but not without the abuse o a isgraccful repudiation of our moral obligations. To disregard their interests and set at naught their wishes in this matter would be especially ungracious on the part of those of us whose constituencies at home agree with the people of the DistCol in to t as principle of the pending bill. opIptOwsoituioldn ill become us to fasten, by our votes, upon the people of this District, against their consent, a measure which the people of our own States have already pronounced a political degradation, and have provided a uinst its infliction upon them by constitutions enactments. In 18 out of 25 States now represented in this Congress negroes and mulattoes are not allowed to vote. n some of the others there are special restrictions imposed. In 3 of the States Couuecticut, Wisconsin, and Minnesota elections were recently held, in which the people by heavy majorities decided against negro suffrage. Yet in each of these States the number of colored persons is comparatively small, while here it probably equals 1/3rd of the entire population. In all the States the people have settled this question for themselves, and I claim the same privilege for the people of the DistCol. The outrage proposed to be inflicted is considerably heightened when we consider the ig norance and degradation of the great body of those upon whom this bill would confer the elective franchise. The colored population of the DistCol, at the beginnin of the war, was about 15,000. Since t on it has more than doubled mainly by the influx of refugees and contrabands from the South, who were born and reared in slavery, and debased by all the influences of such a condition of life. Flew of them able to read; without any instruction in the most elementary principles of government; living amid filth and disease; many of them subsisting upon charity such are the beings selected by this bill to e the representatives of the American ballotbox in the political metropolis of the nation. I do not mean to say that among the colored population of the District there are not individuals of intelligence and worth who would be able to vote. with judgment and patriotism; but they are the exceptions, and constitute the aristocracy, and would consider themselves debased by too close a communion with their more ignorant and degraded brethren. The Gentfrom Iowa Mr. WILsON] did not undertake to argue that t cy were fit to exercise the elective franchise, but he puts in the plea of the statute of limitations, declaring that it is too late now to exclude them from voting upon the ground of ignorance. What have the people of the DistCol done to be made the victims of such a blll as this? It has been charged against them that they were disloyal, and that therefore they are to be punished with negro suffrage. “Disloyalty” is a convenient word nowadays to cover political or social, persecution. had heard that this was one of the motives of this bill, but I hardly expected to hear the Gentfrom Iowa admit in his argument that that was one of the matters to be taken into consideration by this House in their votes upon this bill. I am happy, however, to have the material at hand triumphantly to defend the people of the DistCol from this charge brought against them by the Gentfrom Iowa. The fi res at the or Dept refute this slander, and show a most honorable record for the people of this District in the most perilous hour of the Republic. Under the 1st call for 75,000 men, in 1861, the DistCol put into the field 4,720 volunteers six times as many as the State of Maine, or the State of NewHampshire, or the State of Vermont, and twice as many as those 3 States combined; abont1,000more than the State of Massachusetts, which furnished under that call 3,736 men. I shall not dwell upon the subsequent calls for men during the progress of the war, of whom the DistCol furnished her full proportion. For it was the response to the 1st call which was the touchstone of loyalty. Then there were neither drafts, nor bountics, nor substitutes, nor boatloads of contrabands to be sold to the highest bidder. It was something to be loyal then in this locality, when the flag of the rebels could be seen from the dome of the Capitol, and their morning gun awoke the echoes of the presidential mansion; when even communication with the North was precarious, and at times suspended. It was something then for the DistCol to furnis to the government volunteers equal to 2/3rds of her voting populationl But am disposed to acquit the authors of this bill of all special malice toward the white inhabitants of the DistCol. I am willing to believe that it is not for the punishment of the people of this District in particular that this bill has been framed. The people of this District have no political significance. They vote only in municipal affairs, and it cannot be regarded as a matter in itself important that tfiose affairs should be controlled by negro voters, who own comparatively so little of the property in the District, and who pay so small a portion of the taxes. The design of this bill is far more comprehensive than at. It is to inaugurate here, upon this most conspicuous stage, the 1st act of the new political drama which is intended to culminate in the complete political equality of the races and the establishment of negro suffrage throughout the States. constitutional amendments with this view have been already introduced at both ends of the Capitol. The object of the leaders of this movement is no longer concealed, and if there is anything in their action to admire it is the candor, courage and ability with which they ress their cause. The agitation is to go on and the question has been settled by the country, and it may as well be met here upon the threshold. The monstrous proposition is nothing less than the absorption into the body politic of the nation of a colored population equal to one 6th of all the inhabitants of the country, as the census reports will show. 4 millions of the population so to be amalgamated have been just set free from a servitude the debasing in uences of which have many a time been vividly depicted in the antislavery speeches of the very men who are the most prominent champions of this new political gospel. The object for which this mass of degrade humanity is to be poured into the political arteries of c nation has been bold y proclaimed. The great leader in this House of what he calls himself the “new gospel of liberty, ” has spoken. He has proclaimed that southern representation in Congress must be rendered powerless for any harm to that gentlemans party, either by a change in the asis of representation or y negro suffrage. In“ his remarkable speech he said: With tbe basii unchsnged, the 83 southern members ml the democrats that may in the best of times be elected from the North. will always give them a majority in Congress and in the Electoral college. They will at the very 1st election take possession of the White House and the Halls of Congress.” There is the point and from thence has radiated the “new ospel of libert, ” demanding those measures or the establishment of negro suffrage of which this bill is one. To palliate in some degree the natural repulsiveness of the scheme, its authors attempt, and the Gentfrom Iowa has but followed their example, to shoulder the responsibility upon the founders of our Republic and they go delving down among the foundation stones of our government to find this stone rejected by the builders and make it the head of file corner. Suffrage is claimed for the negro upon the ground of natural right, although the Gentfrom Iowa [ML ILSON] disclaims on his own account putting it on that ground. He put it upon a ground which, accordiu to his own definition, amounted to precisely the same thing. He says that although the right of suffrage is not a natural right, it is a political right, an involved in the nature of civil) government. He said, moreover, that it was a right as sacred as a natural right and therefore I do not see much difference between the ground which he takes and that which is assumed in the numer ous printed pamphlets with which the desks of the members of this House are strewn. But it seems to me that it ought to be sufficicntly evident that universal suffrage is not a natural right, nor a right which is necessarily involved in the nature of civil government. On the contrary, it is aright which can only be exercised in the most artificial condition of society. Nowhere does the right of suffrage exist tot a same extent as in the U.S.A., and Nowhere else is there, or was there ever, so complicated a system of human government. I grant that mankind are entitled by nature to as much power in the State as they are capable of understanding and of using fort e general welfare. No less than that, and no more. The argument in favor of the American negros right to vote must therefore be measured by his capacity to understand and his ability to use such right for the promotion of the public good and that is the very matter in dispute. But the point does not turn simply upon the inferiority of the negro race. For differences without inferiority may unfit one race for political or social assimilation with another, an render their fusion in the same Government incompatible with the general welfare. It is, as I conceive, upon these principles that we must settle the question whether this is a white mans Government. But we were told the other day by my distinguished colleague, the chairman of the ComReconstruction, [Mr. Srnvlzasd that “to say so is political blasphemy.” and in an port of his position he said further that “ our fathers repudiated the whole doctrine of the legal superiority of races.” But the truth is too plain for discussion, that our fathers recognized and practiced directly the opposite doctrine, and even fortified the bulwarks of the constitution itself the subjection of the inferrior race. NO man can read with open eyes and candid mind the constitution of the U.S., as made by our fathers, and fail to see that this Government was intended by its founders to be a white mans Government. It was on this very account that the early abolitionists denounced it as a covenant with hell and the advocates of the higher law proposed to trample it under foot. Arments derived from the phraseology of the DeclarIndep would scarcely need a refutation, were it not for the pertinacity with which they are thrust upon us. If, however, by the expression therein contained that “all men are created free and equal, we are to infer that the illustrious slaveholders who helped to frame that instrument intended to assert the political equality of the races, we must believe also the monstrous anomaly that they intended to proclaim their daily life a continuous lie, and their supremacy over the negro a most atrocious and wicked usurpation. If so, what blasphemy would have been their appeal to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of their intentions, and what mockery to profess as they Edda decent respect for the opinions of man u. o. 1866. 177 We find in the constitutions of many of the States the same words so much dwelt upon by, the advocates of negro equality; and turther on in the same COllSlllllllOllS we find words expressly excluding the negro from all participation in the government. The constitution of Connecticut, adopted in 1818. says, “that allmen, when they form a social compact, are equal in rights; and that no men or set of men are entitled to exclusive public emoluments or privileges in the community.” But this declaration did not prevent the insertion of a clause in the same instrument confirm the elective franchise to the while male citizens of the State. Mr. Speaker, in the constitution of your own State of Indiana, adopted as late as 1851, I find these same talismame words, “All men are created equal.” But further on in the same constitution I find these other words, “No negro or mulatto shall have the right of suffrage.” and in another place these additional words, “No negro or mulatto shall come into or settle in the State after the adoption of this constitution.” and this last prohibition is enforced by heavy pains and penalties. Surely it. will not be pretended that the intelligent people of Indiana intended to make a public proclamation of their injustice by asserting the equality of the negro, while by their organic law they denied to him all the rights of an equal, and even a home within the limits of their community. In the constitution of the State of Oregon, adopted in 1857, there are these words: “We declare all men, when they form a social compact, are equal in rights.” But in the same instrument we find also these other words, ” No negro, Chinaman, or mulatto shall have the right of suffrage.” and Kansas, too, in her constitution, adopted in 1859, declares that “all men are possessed of equal and inalienable rights.” But by the constitution of Kansas white male persons alone can vote. In the constitution of the State of Iowa, adopted in 1857, are contained these words: “A 1 men are by nature free and c ual.” But whether the right of suffrage should e confined to whites was submitted to a vote of the people of the State, and they decided that in that State white persons alone should vote. Yet the whole colored population of Iowa at that time did not exceed 1,000.