Mr. HENDRICKS. The language of the 1st section would be identical with the 2nd if it were “denied or abridged.” Now the Senator says he cannot understand what it means when we speak of “abridging” the right of suffrage. vhen I ask what it means when we speak of “ abridgin ” the rights and immunities of citizenship. tis a little difficult to say, and I have not heard any Senator accurately define, what are the rights and im munities of citizenship; and I do not know that any statesman has very QCCURRW defined them; but even in reference to that, which of itself is not very certain but to some extent vague, a word is now used, as the Senator says, of uncertain legal meaning. He is willing that we shall say “ abridge” the rights and immunities of citizens, but not willing that we shall use the word “ abridge” the right of suffrage. Of course, the abridgment o the right of suffrage does not apply to the particular individua when he comes to casthisvote, that he shall cast a part of a vote. It does not mean that. It must relate to the class that shall enjoy it. An abridment of the right of suffrage must relate to tie class to which it ap lies or extends.Mr. President, my purpose in calling attention to this is to say that this proceeding by the amendment of the Constitution is not so safe as it ought to be. What have we witnessed within the last 2 days? The measure 1st came from the committee of 15, where it was considered for long sessions of the committee, and brought before us, as it was claimed, in a very perfect state. A little discussion showed that it would not.stand the test. Senators were opposed to this and that of the different propositions. Then it went to a peculiar assembly, and was considered there. It comes back, and even the Senator who brings in the report is now dissatisfied. The Senfrom Ohio [Mr. Susanna] yesterday admitted that he was dissatisfied; that it was not what he desired. The Senfrom Illinois, [Mr. YATER] so very able and eloquent today, says it is not what it ought to be; and I desire to say, in explanation, that the criticism that I made yesterday on the position of the Senfrom Ohio does not apply to the Senfrom Illinois. The Senfrom llli nois did not understand the logical force of the point which I made. I did not say that when a proposition is before a body, if an amendment is offered to that proposition, and you lose your amendment, therefore you must necessarily vote against the original proposition because you cannot get the best that you think might be done. My point upon the Senfrom Ohio was this, that the original proposition being here, and an amendment offered by the Senfrom Wisconsin, the Senfrom Ohio said in his place that the amendment was the better of the 2 propositions, but he was goin to vote against an amendment which was etter thant eori inal proposition. That is the very reverse of the position occn ied by the Senfrom Illinois. I acknowledge that the position of the Senfrom Illinois is a very correct one. I do not choose to vote against a measure simply because an amendment which I think would improve it is defeated, if the original measure commands my judgment. Now, sir, this measure, which I believe can accomplish no good for the country, is condemned in part y the Senfrom Ohio, in part by the Senfrom Illinois, in art by the Senator who now proposes an amendment but all 3 of these Senators say they will vote for it, not that it is right, but that it is the best they can ct under the circumstances. I do not expect t cjudgment of each man to be perfectly satisfied with every proposition; but, sir. the Constitution ought not to be amended for the purpose of making a plat form ‘for a political campaign. The Constitution of the country ought to be amended that it shall be the crmanent fundamental law of the country. he embarrassment here is, not that it is difficult to define such general propo'sitions as ought to find their way into the constitution, but the difficulty in the phraseology here is to include this, and to exclude that, to leave general propositions, to leave a principle, and to fix up a thing for a particular purpose. When the Senfrom Michigan says that the southern ncgroes ought not to be counted if they are regarded as untit to be voters, I understand that proposition; but when he wins around and says that the people of Miss iiri, who are decreed by the rest of the pfifg of that State as unfit to be voters, shall be represented, I do not understand such a proposition; and where you undertake to express opposite thoughts in the same sentence you find difficulty of phraseol. Ifyou will say in Iain words that nobgdj' shall be represented in Congress who is not recognized by the State as a voter, I understand it; but when you say that a man in the State of Georgia shall not be represented because the peeple of Georgia count him unfit to be a voter, and in the State of Missouri, a man, who is counted as unfit to be a voter, shall be represented there, I do not understand the principle. When you have to fix up a Constitution to include somethings and exclude others, for partisan purposes, you do find diificulties of phraseology. It cannot be made easy. The difficulty is in the thought, not in the use of the English language; and that is the very dif ficulty that we have in this case. How do on want to “abridge” the right of suffrage? hat is meant by it? What is meant by “abridging” the rights and immunities of citizens? We do not know, the Senfrom Michigan says. Why shall we allow representation to a non-voter in one State, and disallow it in another, upon principle? You say that the negro in Georgia, because he is not allowed to be a voter by the people of Georgia, shall not be represented, and you say that the criminals, because they are criminals, in missouri, excluded from the right of voting, shall be represented. Where is the principle and the right of it? Sir, this thing will be discussed before the people. Although it is clothed in doubtful sentences, it will come to be understood. I believe the people of this country are just; and I do not think the people of this country will say that the voter in issouri ought to represent 2 meu, when the voter in another State is denied that. But, sir, my iurpose was simply to suggest to the distinguishedSenfrom Michigan that the same doubtful word was used in the 1st section that he objects to in the 2nd.