Mr. KASSON. It is not enough for the gem tleman to say to me that he agrees with Washington, Jefferson, and Madison, and is for the constitution in its breadth. I agree with him in that respect; I am for the constitution in its breadth. I am also for the constitution in its narrowness, if narrowness exists. Iam for the constitution either way and I say, and on this I have made issue with the gentleman, that the constitution does not contemplate, and Mr. Madison does not claim it as contemplatin, that the Congress of the U.S. sh have the right to prescribe who shall vote in my State or any other State for members of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature. Now sir, I take that issue a sin. referred to the Federalist, No. 52, which I think the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. KELLEY] did not hear, in which Mr. Madison, over his own well known signature, declared that it was expressly committed to the State governments to deter mine that; for in that way they indirectly deter mined who shouldvote for members of Congress, and it was unsafe to give it to the Congress of the U.S. Sir, we have had during the war necessarily a great disosition, in which I have shared, to allow the constitution of the U.S. to be interpreted broadlybroadly in the interests of the integrity of the country; broadly for the prosecution of the war; broadly for the maintenance of the life of the Union; and I have not one single declaration I have ever made in that direction to take back at this time. I say that it is one of the lories of that constitution, it is one of the e ements of perpetual national safety involved in that Constitution, that it is flexible in its application to times and events, and in this war the liberal construction of it in my judgment, has secured the triumphs of the armies of the Union. In time of peace the further prosecution of an internotation of the constitution toward a cen tralization of the power of the Federal Government, or the broad interpretation that takes from the States the right of prescribing the qualification of electors to the must numerous branch of the State legislatnres, is most dangerous to the rights an liberties of the people of the U.S.; and I desire to enter my solemn protest against that construction. Sir, the question is before my State today whether they will strike the word “ white" out of the State constitution prescribing the qualification of the electors. gthink that the word white” should be stricken out of the State constitution, because that would enable our Legislature to allow qualified colored men to vote, which it cannot now do. Now, shall we allow this Congress, when composed of Democratic majorities, to come in and say to my State that we shall not allow the black men to vote, even for the most numerous branch of the State Legislature? No, sir, the constitution secures expressly the right to each State to determine that and their determining that determines who shall vote for members of the Congress of the U.S and this is an inherent power in the States that we should guard with great jealousy; and we should not allow ourselves to give currency to the decla ration that Congress, representing all States of the Union, may, by majorities combined from other States, declare the qualitication in any State of persons who shall e permittedto vote therein. I ow, I leave that subject to the consideration of the House, and I will call attention, as briefly as I can, to the rules that, in myjudgment, ought to be applied to this question of the right of suffrage in the DistCol. I wish it were possible for us to admit those things which cannot be disputed, and reject those things which as worthy of rejection, cannot be disputed, an come right down to the single narrow point involved in this debate.