Mr. HARDING,of hentucky. Directly; not now. You are preparing by this amendment to strike Kentucky another blow. You propose to force her to adopt negro suffrage or ose a part of her representation on this oor. But in the everchaugin population of this country many of your chi dren and grand children may in a few years be citizens of Kentucky where they will reap the fruits of this denial of her rights; so fanatical and blind are all schemes for making sectional and party constitutions in a country like this. Why, sir, to obtain a sectional advantane in this way is a thing I would not accept; I would scorn it. Seize upon this Government, exclude 11 States, make a constitution that is to operate upon them and their osterity for all time, and not allow them to be leardl Sir, that is prov ocation enough. If they had had that much revocation before the war, they would have can justified in the eyes of the world in the attempt to throw off such oppression bv revolution; they would then have been right. It would be a greater rovocation even than our fathers had who refielled against the Government of GreatBritain. You propose to frame and pass an organic law without their consent or participation, to force it upon them, and to tax them without representation. Sir, allow me to illustrate this course of action. Suppose 3 northern men unite and form a partnershipin a certain business. Each brings in all his capital. They are all equal partners. By and by one is absent. His 2 partners close the doors of the house and change the articles of artnership so as to allow him less ca ital in the concern and increase their own. Vhen he returns they say to him, “We will open the doors, you can come in and resome usiness with us, provided you will agree to and ratify the article of copartnership as it now reads; but ifyou will not agree to that. we have possession and will keep you ont alto gether.” Now, sir, would not common honesty blush at such a transaction as that? But yet, sir, is this any better? Do not 2/3rds of the States take possession of this House, t “close the doors upon the other 3rd. seek to change the constitution, so as to greatly increascand enlarge their own powers, and diminish the powers and rights of the other 3rd, proposing to force such a constitution upon them or keep them out altogether? Does not every gentleman see that all such propositions to amend the constitution rise no lg ler than the miserable party issues of the day? You seek in the absence of those 11 States to hedge, fence around, and secure yourselves in political power and how vain are all such attempts! You may prepare the way for a rebellion which may reach you by and by as well as Kentucky and other border States. If you go on in thisway, sowing the seeds ofrevolutlon, you may yet reap a fearful harvest for your selves in the North. It is well to look now to the future. You are attempting to manufacture a new constitution, closing the door against 11 States, knowinv that if they were here you could not do it. Therefore you keep them out and then when it comes to the ratification of this amendment vou deny them a voice in the ratification. For if I understaud the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENS] he proposes this amendment for ratification to 19 of the States only. Sir, you are proposing to intermeddle with the most vital question that pertains to our Government. Sovereignty resuics in the people. Every man who is a voter exercises a part of that sovereignty. There is nothing more vi tal. Our whole machineryofGovernment is put in motion only by it. The sovereign, the voter approaches the polls; touches a spring, an instantly the whole complex machinery is in motion. The power of the elective franchise is unquestionably the most important power than you can confer upon anyone. It is the bnsis and foundation of our system of Government. lfthis machinery is put in motion and started care fully and cautiousl in the right direction, the happiest results follow, but if it is started in the wrong direction, who cap count the consequences? and yetyou have said in some of your bills, and now you propose to say to the whole country, that this degraded African race, as you once represented them, ignorant almost as the beasts of the field, can be safely intrusted with this important governing power. No man can believe that it is safe. 1o say the very best of it, it is an experiment, and more than that, our form of governmentisyctan experiment. Many of our best and wisest men yet tremble for its fate, and the history of the whole world so far is against mans capacity for selfgovernment. We are now on trial. trying an experiment. We have had one terrible collision, and we ought to guard, especially in our constitutional amendments, against a recurrence of it at a time when the great problem of mans capacit for self government is not vet solved, and the eyes of all the friends of liberty throughout the world are intently gazing at this experiment. You come up rudely now and pro050 to take into full governing partnership with 1 yourselves mil li0ns of a most degradet and ignorant race. How was it that we got along thus far? How was the war carried on? Was there any voice of this sort to be heard at that time? Your orators then were harnnguing their countrymen to rally to the standard to defend the Constitution. You all know now that if this phase of the negro question had then been presented, your standard would have been deserted; not a man would have come to it. I make no appeals to the soldiers. Some of them are very good men; they are much like other men. But ask you if this is to be the result of the war. Is there not some reason for snyin that this Republican party designed and intcm edall this from the start; that they intended to go On and on and cmuncipate the negro and then enfrun chise him and make him the oqual Of Willie men, and in that way perpetuate their power? Although I do not say it, yet pardon me for believing it. Was it for this that this crushing public debt has been accumulated; a debt that is absolutely reducing the poor white man to the worst of slavery, the slavery of grindin and oppressive taxation; a debt under which this great nation now reels and staggers like a drunken man? Was it for this that our brave soldiers were called to the field, and 1,000sof them sacrificed their lives? Is this the result of all their sufferings on the field of battle, of all their toils and wounds and bloodshed and sacrificesthat they should enjoy the recious privilege of being made the equal of the negro at the polls and in officeholding? Yes, that is all. Now, sir, although we of Kentucky are considered in the Union, and loyal enough at least to be here and to be occasionally heard, I would not if it were in in power take advantage of the feeblest State in the North improperly and unfairly to reduce her representation in this body, and more especially would I blush at the idea of doing it when her mouth was closed and she had no voice here. You of the North are not to be affected by this provision, as your negroes are few, but you know very well that the tend ency of your emancipation policy was to turn the tide of negro immigration to the South. We are to have a dense negro population who are unfit to control themselves as you say; there must be a Freedmens Bureau to control them. You want to force us in Kentucky, for example, either to enfranchise all these negroes or give uppart of our representation. Is that air? s it just? Now, I apprehend the fairest basis of representation is the one we now have, population. Perhaps a suffrage basis would be more nearly fair than any other amendment you propose; but I amsatisfied with. it as it is. gdo not know that a suffrage basis would be exactl fair to the New enland States. I do not now but that some of the NewEngland States that have an excess of female population might be injuriously affected by it. onvince me of that, and I would not consent to it as an amendment to the constitution. Sir, this is not open, fair political warfare. You are proposing to take advantage of the ab sence of the Representatives of 11 States and the feeble power of the minority here toingraft your peculiar political dogmas on the constitution. Have you not done enough of this sort of work? Did not Kentucky bare her breast to the storm, and do her whole duty in the war? Were not her fields desolated and her whole territory ravaged by the war? That she could not escape. twas the misfortune of her geographical position, and she could not help it. But in addition to all that, you passed an amendment to the constitution which struck down at one blow at least 100 millions in value of property, recognized up to that time everywhere as property, without a dollar of compensation even promised. That property was legalized and recognized as much as any other property; and men, in making provision for their families, made large investments in that kind of property; yet, by that one act, you strike down that vast amount of property, absolutely robbing the infant in the cradle and the tottering old widow on the verge of the grave, and 1,000s who owned no other property. But you said it was necessary, and that was the ground upon which it was placed, that it was neces to enable the Government to succeed againstt erebellion. Now, while Kentucky has made all these other sacrifices, was it fair and honest to take from her 100 millions of her property for the benefit of the whole of the States an pay her nothing? I would not accept that from Massachusetts or from any other State, even though it was necessary for the good of the whole nation to take any species of property from Massachusetts or any other State. I could not be driven by the party lash to do it without giving Just compensation. The principle of common honesty would forbid it. I won d not live myself upon the means of another man, nor would I be in favor of supporting and sustaining the Gomrumentat the unequal expense of the States. [Here the hammer fell]