Mr. CLARKE, of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I have no apologies to offer for addressing the House on this subject. As the only Representative upon this floor of a State whose whole history has been a continual protest against political injustice and wrong, it is my duty, as it is my pleasure, to express by voice and vote my approval of the principles involved in the bill now before the case. No attentive listener to this debate can have failed to perceive the absolute paucity of reasoning which has thus far characterized the speeches which have been made in opposition to this measure. I find it difficult to sift from the mass of verbiage with which they abound the few points on which their arguments turn. I state them as briefly as possible. It is said, in the 1st place, that the people of this District have shown by a large majority that they do not desire impartial manhood I suffrage. The right of Congress, and not the people of this District, to settle this matter, is clear and undoubted, and is acknowledged by those who oppose this bill. For my own part, I consider the possession of this right a sufficient reason for its exercise; the act being in itself just, wise, and necessary, and dictated by the highest and best principles of governmental policy. It is not for the people of this District, especially that portion of them who voted at the late pretended election, to authorize the continued disfranchisement of any class in their midst.” Governments are instituted among men, depriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” This principle is sufficient to base an allconclusive answer to this the 1st reason given against this measure of justice. We are told, again, that the people to be enfranchised are poor, ignorant, and incapable of enjoying the rights of citizenship. A renewed recital of the statistics of their condition in this District is an ample answer to all this. The colored people in this District, numbering about 20,000, own 21 churches, the maintenance of which costs annually $20,000. They support 33 day schools, and pay taxes on one and a quarter million dollars worth of real property. 3000 and odd have served in the Army of the Union, of whom 1000 have fallen in battle and by disease in defense of the country. They have over 4000 church members. In 22 Sunday schools they have over 3000 scholars. Their property is taxed to aid in the education of the white children, while they support their own schools. The report of the superintendent of colored schools for the month of December shows an attendance at 45 schools office thousand. 618 pupils. 9 other schools, having in 560 pupils, are not included in this report. There are 2 excellent industrial schools, with 147 pupils. Not one of these schools is sustained the municipal authorities of either Washington or George town. They are supported by benevolent organizations. In addition, there are the schools under the Freedmens Commission, which have a large number of pupils. They take over our 1,000 copies of the 2 Republican papers of this District, and be it said to their credit, not many subscribers can be found among them for the organs of caste and prejudice. This oppressed an injured race, who are so poor and ignorant as to be incapable, in the judgment of gentlemen on the other side of the House, of voting intelligently, support 30 “ benevolent, literary, and civic organizations, ” which contribute to their intelligence, and care for their poor and needy. The city supports but new colored paupers. They will show as large a proportion of children growing up with education as any other laboring community can. Sir, it is not too much to say that the colored people of this District show as good tests of intelligence, so far as that can be seen by the proportion of education among them, the amount of religious character, the quality of industry, freedom from poverty, payment of taxes, and loyalty as evinced by military service, as can be found in the constituencies of gentlemen speaking in opposition to this bill. The only reply made to all these proofs of character, industry, and intelligence is, that this is a white mans Government.” The constitution is fiercely invoked to sustain this dogma, while the mutilation of historical evidence is as complete as political deception can devise. Mr. Speaker, am proud enough of my race, its progress, its condition, and its achievements. 1 am too proud, sir, to fear the competition of the swarthy scions of another and unfortunate one. I do not share in the solicitude which seems to torture the minds of the opponents of this bill, as they dwell with words of horror and alarm on the prospect of competition between the constituencies they represent and the colored people of this District, just emerging into the full rights of American citizenship. ride in the white race leads me to honor Sir Philip Sidney, when he declared " That the poor human being. the nearer he comes to the sympathy of a true gentleman.” and I honor, too, the juristI think it was Judge Harrington, of Vermontwho would not acknowledge a man to he a slave unless a bill of sale from God was shown him. I am proud of my race when I remember the motive that dictated Jeffersons testimony when he declared that “ he trembled for his count when he remembered that God was just.” Affirm so sure of the supremacy of my race, that I cannot acknowledge want of capacity for competition, as inferred from the arguments of the Opposition, when they plead for laws excluding a portion of the loyal people of this District from an “equal chance in the race of life.” Nor have I any fear of social equality or of a social revolution because we give to the poor and the unfortunate the right of political selfdefense. But “ this is a white mans Government ” say the authoritative representatives of the democratic party of the country again and again. I shall endeavor to show as compactly as I can the utter falsity of the declaration as taken in the sense use by gentlemen on the other side of the House. I shall show that by all the methods in which association with and service for this Union is recognized the American colored man has always been included within the term “people, ” and been esteemed a citizen of the Republic. Let us see from the records of history how far the facts assure the truth of this assertion. The constitution of the U.S. does not deny this. The Articles forming the original Confederation include no provision set ting forth such a limitation. The Declaration is explicit, and directly in opposition to this dogma. A majority of the original State constitutions lisp no syllable sustaining it. All the declarations, sentiments, and writings of the leading men of the Revolution breathe a spirit to the contrary of this prescriptive heresy. ow, sir, to the proof. It is asserted that the term “ people” did not include free colored persons. On the 25th of June, 1778, the Continental Congress decided that the word “ white” should not be included in the 4th article. This provides that the “free inhabitants of each of the States paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted) STIR“ be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States.” SCarolina moved to insert the word “ white.” 11 States voted: 2 sustained the motion; one was divided; 8 States voted against it. Thus the fathers affirmed the right of the free colored man to vote and share the government with the free whites. Another and similar proposition was also rejected. This same Congress twice passed laws for the government of territory to the U.S. by the several States. These were the acts of April 23, 1784, for the government of such territory and of July 13, 1787, for the government of what was known as the “ North west Territory.” In neither of these acts was the right of suffrage restricted to white persons. On the contrary, the discussion at the time of adoption was explicit upon that question. Sir, it is surprise in that at this late day, when all the facts bearing upon this question have been so thoroughly sifted, and never successfully controverted, anybody can be found who will deny that free persons of color participated equally with the whites in the organization of the Government; in voting upon all measures establishing the Confederation; in the adoption of the present constitution: and that in a majority of the States forming the Union they exercised the elective franchise. The constitution of Massachusetts provides that every male person 21 years of age, residing one year in the town, and owning a freehold valued at 3 pounds or an estate of the value of 60 pounds, should have the right to vote. RhdIsland, by its colonial charter, provides that members of her General Assembly should be elected by “the major portion of the free men Of the respective towns or places.” Connecticut provided only that 40 shillings freehold, or personal estate valued at 40 pounds, “with mature ears and civil behavior, ” should he the qualification for electors. NewYork gave the franchise to “every male inhabitant” possessing certain qualifications, among which color was not enumerated. NewJersey said, “all inhabitants of the colony of full certain qualifications, among Which was not mentioned color, should be entitled to vote for all officers elected by the people. The Gentfrom NewJersey knows well that under this provision free men of color voted in that State for many years. Pennsylvania said, “all free men” of the age of 21, who had resided one year in the State and paid taxes, should be entitled to vote. Not white men, but “all free men, ” is the words of the original constitution of that State. Delaware said in her bill of rights: “Every free man having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with and attachment to the community bath the right of suffrage.” This is a declaration amply sufficient to cover every point in the bill we are now discussing. Having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest.” Will any candid man deny the evidence of this common interest which has been presented here? Maryland provided that “all free men” over 21, and possessing a freehold of 50 acres, and having property in the State valued above 30 pounds, should have the right of suffrage. Virginia made in her bill of rights the same declaration I have quoted from Delaware. NCarolina gave the right of suffrage to “ all free men” who had resided at certain period in the State would paid taxes. Georgia made no distinctions of color. That State required for the exercise of the franchise only that the voter should be a free man, be 21 years old, have resided and paid taxes in the State for 6 months preceding the election. SCarolina alonefrom the beginning the marplot of our republican councilsinserted the word “ white” after “ free” and before man, ” in articles fixing qualifications for electors in that State. With this exception, and those of Virginia and Delaware, though their declaration of rights were broad enough to cover all free persons, the exercise of the right of suffrage was regulated by statutory enactment. All the other States included among their electors free persons of color. In no State constitution, exec t SCarolina, was it limited by term to the white man. Is that State the model upon which gentlemen desire to mold this nation? Are not the facts thus collated sufficient to refute the assertion that the American colored man had no lot or part in the organization of this Government? If the proofs of the longcontinued exercise of the elective franchise, continuing in most of the States during the 1st 40 and best years of the Republic. [do not overthrow such baselessassertions, what then will? But, sir, it is not only the enactments of the Continental Congress, and of the differentStates which formed this Union, but still more expli citly do the founders of this Republic give back the libel now sought to be fastened upon them. The early pages of our history teem with their declarations, both as individuals and as members of the Government. In 1779 the Conti nental Congress announced, in a pamphlet or dered to be printed, that “The great principle [of government] is npd will ever remain in force. that men are by usture tree; as tion of the constitution must notice, is this: thaternments formation was participated in by all accountable to Him that made them, they must be so; and so long as we have any idea of divine justicc, we must associate that of human freedom. Whether men can part with their Iibert is among the quotations who have exercisedthen lost minds; but it is conceded on all hands that the right to be free can never be alienated: still lessis it practicable for one generation to mortgage the privileges of another.” The entire argument made on the other side of the House is answered, granting that it was true in fact that our fathers did not take mens nres for the black mans rights equally with their own. One generation cannot make alien upon my rights, or those of any other man. they cannot mortgage them to the future. When that future comesand opportunity offers to undo the wrong, it is its so emn duty to apply the remedy. Mr. Jeffersons opinions are well known. Mr. Madison has declared that the word “slave” was not inserted in the constitution, because the Federal Convention desired to affix no such a stain upon the instrument. Neither did they insert t. e qualifying word “white.” General Gates and others, at that early day, emancipated their slaves. In an address, after the peace of 1778, written by Mr. Madison, congress declared “That it has ever been the ride and boast of America that the rights for which she contended worn the righh of humnn nature.” I cahnot help thinkin, Mr. Speaker, that if the on of Mr. Madison d been guided by the sentiment of the Gentfrom NewJersey, he most certainly would have written “white human nature.” But all the great names of that period rebuke the fallacious Democratic assumption that this Government was founded for and by white men only. Pendleton, may son, Wythe, Leeancestor of the traitor General who made the name infamous Grayson, StGeorge Tucker, Blair, Page, Parker, Randolph, Iredell, Spraight, Ramsey, McHenry, Samuel Chase, Franklin, the Adamses, Heath, Patrick Henry, John Jay, Faulkner, Pinkney of Maryland, Barbour, Hamilton, one and all, excepts few SCarolinians, are on record, by word, deed, and life, against the infamous dogma that this is a “white mans Government” alone. Nor were their opinions expressed loosel, liable to various interpretations, or intende to be differently construed. Mr. Jefferson expressly speaks of slaves as “citizens” in his Notes on Virginia. He said most explicitly: "The true foundation of republican government is the equal rights of every citizen in his person property, and an in their management.” Was Jefferson in favor of white men alone man aging the persons and reperty of all over whom the mgis of the Republic was cast? His own words reply. Sir, another striking fact which a student of the discussion preceding the adop much of the opposition against the instrument grew out of the general desire to have its opinions made even more plain and direct. preovairsl all the States demanded amendments which 1 would strengthen impartial liberty. Readers of the Federalist will not fail to perceive that the writers therein argue earnestly on objections against the instrument, because it was not preceded by an am lebill of rights. The obJection was not in avor of restriction, but that it was not comrehensive enough. I have thus, sir, given brie y the proofs that this Govern the people not held as slaves, that it was meant to include all men, and that. the opinions and actions of all our distinguished men at that era were in favor of a still more liberal inclusion of classes. Mr. Speaker, I now propose to show the ser Wce rendered by the colored race in the war which secured independence and prepared the way for the present Union. Here too, our history is rep ete with refutations of the false Democracy which resists the passage of this bill. Among the men who shared in the common, interest and Early agitation that paved the way to Lexington and Bunker Hill was one Christopher or Crispus Attucks, a mnlatto, who had i also been a slave. He fell, shot by one of Cap titain Proteuss soldiers, March 6, 1770, marshaling and leading the 1st resistance to British tyranny, and sealing by his blood the inception of the “white mans Government.” It was a black soldier, named Salem, that at Bunker Hill shot the exulting British leader, Pitcairn, as he shouted “ The day is ours l” Salem was afterward presented to Washington. History keeps the names of others of the same race serving at that battle. Among them was Titus Coburn, Alexander Arms, Barzilai Lew, of and over Massachusetts, and Cato Howe, of Plymout. Each received a pension from this “white mans Government” for aiding to secure the independence of this “white mans country.” Seymour Burr, of Connecticut, was afugitive slave who with a party of others tried to join the British to in liberty. He was captured. His master, a rother of Aaron Burr, gave him the freedom he coveted on condition of his fighting for the country. He accepted the offer, and joined the 7th Connecticut regiment, under Colonel Brooks. He, too, received a pension, as did Jeremy Jones, serving in the same regiment. Judge Story, of Massachusetts, was awitness of the courage of the black soldiers in our revolutionary war. General Eustis says they entered the ranks with the whites. “The Bucks of America” was a colored company which, under command of Colonel Middleton, a colored man, went through the war, and at its close were presented with c anner by John H an cock. Charles Bowles, who died in 1843, was a revolutionary pensioner and acolored preacher, who, when a mere boy, enlisted in the American Army and served throughout the war. James Easton served at Dorchester Heights. Job Lewis, formerly a slave, served over 6 years, enlisting 3 times. “The State of Massachusetts Bay, ” through its Legislature, in 1778, authorized the raising of a colored regiment, the officers to be white. RhdIsland, in February, 1778, authorized the raising of 2 battalions, to be composed of such slaves as should be willing to serve for their freedom, and in addition giving them such “bounties, wages, 650, ” as were allowed by the Continental Congress. The gallant conduct of these men at the battle of Red Bank is one of the memorable incidents of the Revolution. 400 men of color met and repulsed 1500 Hessians, under Count Donop. When later, at Croton river, May 13, 1781, colonel Greene, commander of this regiment fell mortally wounded, his faithful black guard defended him with their lives. Every one was killed. Sir, I might go on, giving the names and referring to the deeds of 100s of brave colored soldiers who, in that 1st perilous hour, were found willi to fight for a nation which held it majority of their race in bondage. The blood of the black man mingled in every contest, and every revolutionary battlefield answers the argument put forth on the other side of this House. Sir, not only did American men of color do honorable service in the Revolution, but men of the same race from the despised republic of Hayti, then a French colony, were ranged on our side. Arcginient of Haytien colored men were part of our French allies at the siege of Savannah. Mr. Speaker, the gentlemen on the other side of the House have solemnly warned us of the prejudices which exist between races. The honorable Gentfrom NewYork [Mia CHANLrm] enthrones prejudice as one of the great forces of the people in the following words: “Prejudice is to the mind what nerves are to the body. It gives impulse to thought and direction to judgment.” Further on he said, speaking for the oppo nents of this measure: “We respectthe intense praiudioo which preserves our race in its purity, vigor, and supremacy.” other gentlemen, not glorifying so unequivo cally the prejudices which, blind and brutal in their manifestation, have grown out of the foul ideas implanted by slavery, and have been sedulously fostered by Democratic teaching, nevertheless catch up and herald the cry. Nowhere have we seen the rie fruitage of such teachings better illustrated I. an in the riots and rapine not long since indulged in by the constituents of the Gentfrom NewYork. We are told in gloomy words of the horrors which are to follow the passage of this bill. But, sir, these words are not so fierce, nor are I the prophetic appeals of the remnants of the slave oligarchy so full of evil foreboding as in other days resounded in this Hall, when these some men and this same prejudice resisted the abolition of slavery in this District. I am in favor of this bill because I see in it the opsosite of all thisthe benign, harmonizing, an prosperous influences of freedom. Organized injustice is sure to rovoke anarchy, and is in itselfa despotism. the law of the Universe is justice; its method is progress. We must come within this rule in rearing the fabric of a reconstructed Government, or “the stone which was rejected of the builder” shall some daybe the means of its fall, or else become the exalted crowning corner of the edifice. All history, so laboriously misre presented by the Gentfrom NewYork, [. Mr. CHANLER] teems with examples of the folly of injustice. The following words of deTocqueville, quoted so inaptly in the speech inst this bill by the Gentfrom how Yor, [Mix CHANLER] are an impressive warning of the dan crous doctrine which he and the c ponents of this bill would make perpetual. ct, me read them: “If ever the free institutions of America are destroyed that event may be attributed to the unlimit authority of the majority. which may at some future day urge minorities to desperationandoblige themto have recourseto physical force. Anarchywill bethe result, but it willlipve been brought aboutbydespot ism. "Democracum America, v0. 1. p. 317. This, sir, is the precise result of the policy of gentlemen on the other side of this House, in struggling to so shape the legislation of this nation, and of its component States. as to make the minority, upon whose neck the and their friends have so long held the iron eel of oppression rise in hopeless revolt. The spirit of persccution, which words but faintly conceal, has marked the reactionaries of all time. Sir, this is not the spirit which shall ide my action. The wisestt inker England as ever produced, Francis Bacon, has well said: “A statesman considers even the prejudices of a people.” This axiom should be accepted as containing aprofound principle of administration; but not by weaving prejudices into forms of government, and making them the foundation of our laws. No, sir. Bacon declares that the true states man endeavors to overcome prejudices, to show the benefits of just action, and by all reasonablemeans to prove their futility. What is the foundation principle of civil society? Herbert Spencer has wel said, in his Social Statics, that “It is the liberty of each limited by the liberty of all.” “ Every man has freedomtodo all thathe wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedomof any other man.” his only when individual liberty is detrimental to the liberty of others, as by acts of crime, or when individual or national life is at stake, that a derivation can be allowed. Hence all must have the means of protection, whether it be the simpleforce of the savage or the complex forms of) modern civilization. This means of protection belongs to all men not as a be stowed privilege, but as a right in erect to existence as membersof society. Here, I conceive, is the difference between American democracy and all other systems of overument. These, in a greater or less degree, estow privilegesand legis e for classes. Our democracy protects rights. It was organized for that end, not to bestow then]. that is not within its power, because each is entitled to the rights of all and all of each. Sir, this is my idea of American democracy. From these iremises, Mr. Speakcr, Idednce the right of so ragethe most potential means of protection. Noris this right unded by the accidents of birth or former condition. It is not to be measured by other mens prejudices. Speaking of the very class on whose enfranchisement this debate hinges, Mr. Jefferson said, more than half a century since: “Whatever be their degree of talent, it is no measureof their rights.” I beg the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. BOYER] who ainted so darkly the overty and ignorance of the colored men of this District, to consider this prenant sentence from the pen of him who is justy reverenced as the great apostle of popular Democracy. This cry o overty and ignorance is not new. I remembert at those who 1st followed the Son of man, the Saviour of the world, were not the learned rabbis, not the enlightened scholar, not the rich man or the pious harisee. They were the poor and needy, the peasant and the fisherman. I remember, also, that the more learned the slaveholder the greater the rebel. I remember that no black skin covered so false a heart or misdirected brain, that when the radiant banner of our nationality was near orbefore him, he did not understand its meaning and remain loyal to its demands. The man capable of taking care of himself, of wife and children and in addition by his unrequited toil to hold up his oppressor, must have intelligence enough in the long run to wieid the highest means of protection we can give. But, sir, it is for our benefit, as well as for the benefit of the proscribed class, that I vote for and support impartial manhood suffrage in this District. We cannot afford as a nation to keep any class ignorant, or oppress the weak. we must establish here republican government. That which wronrs one man in the end recoils on the many. Sir. if we accept, as the Republican party of the Union. our true position and onrduty, we shall nobly win. If We are false and recreant, we shall miserably fail. Let us have faith in the people and the grand lo ic of:1 might revolution, and dare to do rit. Class legisation will be the inevitable result of class power; and what would follow, so far as the colored race are concerned, let the recent tragedy of Jamaica answer. Sir, it is the foundation of my political faith, as it was the faith of Washington and Jetferson and Madison, and of those who fought with them for the republican idea, that the sovereign power of this Government belon to all, and not a part, of the American people. The right of all men who come within the prevince of the national authority to a voice in public alfnirs is as sacred as the rights of human nature themselves, or the laws of God. If the atrocious sentiments daily enunciated on the other side of this House by the representatives of modern Democracy are to prevail, then I seebut little hope for the perpetuity and welfare of republican institutions in America. The maxim of our fathers. that “ Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, ” had hetterbe stricken from the immortal DeclarIndep if this nation is to assentin any way to the monstrous fallacy of the Dred Scott decision, and the corresponding assaults upon the rights of humanity so boldly enunciated by the Gentfrom ewJersey early in this debate, and so readily received and indorsed by the rty he represents. Mr. Speaker, I arraign the arguments and the policy of the Democratic Representatives upon. This floor as a despotic and malignant as sault upon the masses of the American eo ge, u it their liberties and their rights. This red cott policy ought to have died with its author, and can consigned to that “everlasting infamy” with which posterity will surely receive so foul a stain upon the records of American jurisprudence. It may be fitting, however, that m its passage to the tomb it should be nursed and eulogized by a political party which but recently declare the late war for the Union a failure, invited an armistice with the assassins of the national life, resisted the filling up of our armies, incited riots in our great cities, and gave all the weight of party influence to the enemies of the country in the hours of national peril and disaster. I say, sir, it may be fitting that this dictum of a pro slavery judge, this judicialo litical outrage, should be reiterated and defended by such a part asnow seeks to make lawgivers of rebels, establish an oli archyin the place of republicanism, and place the control of the Government of the nation in the hands of the few at the expense of the many. But o not stop here. The principle; involved in the arguments put forth on the other side of the House are not alone destructive to the rights of the defenseless, intelligent, and patriotic colored men of this District, but they militate with a double effect and stronger purpose a inst the poor whites of the North and of the oath, against the German, the Irishman, and the poor and oppressed of every race, who come to our shores to escape the oppression of despotic Governments, and to seek the rotection of a Government the true theory o which reposes in every citizen a portion of its sovereign power. Against this attempt to deny or abridge in any way the rights of the Weak, the poor, and the defenseless, and to transfer the governing power of the nation to the favored c asses, to the rich and the powerful, and thus change the very purpose and principles of our republicnn system, protest in the name of constitutional freedom, and in behalf of equal rights and equal laws. I protest against this stealthy innovation upon opnlar rights, in the name of the toiling millions of the land; and I warn the House and the country of the untold mischief and disaster which must come to distract and divide the republic in the future, if we follow the pernicious and destructive doctrines founded upon either the prejudices of class, caste, wealth, or power. I protest in the name of a constituency whose early history was a sublime and persistent strug gle against the prejudices of pampered and arrogant rutfianism at home and the worse than ruffian spirit of the Administrations of Pierce and Buchanan, and the Democratic trai tors who at that time constituted a majority of this House, and were envaved in preparing the nation for its harvest of? blood. We must go back to the spirit and purposes of the founders of our Government. e must accept the grand logic of the mighty revolution from which we are now emerging. We must rendiate, now and forever, these assaults upon the masses of the peeple, and upon the fundamental principles of popular rights. I accept in their full orce and effect the principles of the DeclarIndep, an by constitutional amendment and law of Congress I would stamp them with irrevocable power upon the olitlegal escutcheon of the new and regenerated Republic. I would avoid the mistakes of the est, and I would spam that cringing timidity iiy which, through all history, liberty has been sacrificed and humanity betrayed. Sir, I hesitate not to say that if we do not gather up, in the process of national reconstruction, the enduring safeguards of future peace, we shall be false to our history and unmind ful of the grand responsibilities now devolving upon us. The establishment of impartial suffrage in this Districtwill be a fitting commencement of the work. It will be hailed by the friends of freedom everywhere as a return to a policy of national justice too long delayed. In behalf of the State I have the honor to Represent, and upon whose soil this contest for a larger liberty and a nobler nationality was 1st submitted to the arbitrnment of arms, I hail this measure with feelings of satisfaction and pride. It is the legitimate result of the courage and fidelity of the ardy pioneers of Kansas in 1856, who dared to face the blandishment of power and the arrogance and brutality of slavery when compromisers trembled, and northern sycophants ofan oligarchic despotism, then, as now, scowled and fretted at the progress of free principles.