Mr. JULIAN of Indian then addressed the House. [found in the Appendix.] Speech entitled Amendment of the Constitution. January 29, 1866. The House having under consideration the JtResolution reportedby the ComReconstruction for the amendment of the Constitution of the U.S.R. JULIAN said: Mr. Speaker: Before this debate shall be concluded I desire to submit some observations which I deem important, and which I respect fully commend to the consideration of those who advocate the proposition reported by the JtCommee of 15. How I shall nally cast m vote on that proposition I cannot now certainly decide. I find iificulties in my path; and I shall feel much obliged to any gentleman who may be able and willingto clear them away, and thus, erliaps, assist others on this floor in reaching aJiisteonclusion. I shouldregret exceedingly to separate myselffrom those with whom I habit equally not here, by opposing the measure referred to, and I must not db so without recording my reasons; and these reasons, in so far as they possess weight, may serve as my protest a inst whatever is objectionnble inthatmeasure, ould its modification be found impracticable, and I should finally give it my support as the best thing within our power. Under the constitutional injunction upon the U.S. to guaranty a RFGto every State, I believe the power already exists in the nation to regulate the right of. suffrage. It can only exercise this power. through, Congress; and Congress fof course, must, decide what is a RFG, and when the national authority gall interpose against State action, for the purpose of executing the constitutional guarantee. No one will deny the authority of Congress to decide that if a State should disfranchise 1/3rd, one half, or 2/3rds of her citizens, such State would cease to be republican, and might lJO required to accept a different rule of an rage. If Congress could intervene in such acase, it could obviously intervene in any.other case in which it might deem it necessary or proper. It certainly might decide that the disfanchisement by a State of a whole race of people within her borders is inconsistent with a RFG, and in their behalf and in the execution of its own authority no duty, restore them to their equal right with others to the franchise. lt.might decide, for example, that in NCarolina, where 631,000 citizens disfranchise 331,000, the government is not republican, and should be made so by extending the franchise. It might do the same in Virginia, where 719,000 citizens disfranchise 638,000; in Alabama, where 596,000 citizens disfranchise 437,000; in Georgia, where 591,000 citizens disfranchise 465,000; in Louisiana, where 357,000 citizens disfranchise. 350,000; in Mississippi, where 353,000 citizens disfranchise 436,000; and in SCarolina, where only 291,000 citizens disfranchise 411,000. Can any man who reverences the Constitution deny either the authority or the duty of congress to do all this in the execution of the unrantee named? Or if the 411,000 negroes in SCarolina were to organize a government, and disfranchise her 201,000 white citizens, would anybody doubt the authority of Co ress to pronounce such government antirepublican and secure the ballot equally to white and black citizens as the remedy? Or if a State should prescribe as a qualification for the ballot such an ownership of property, real ordersoual, as would disfranchise the great body O her people, could not Congress most undoubtedly interfere? So of an educational test, which might fix the standard of knowled so high as to place the governing power in the hands of a select few. The pouQr in all such. cases is a reserved one in Congress, to be exercised according to its own judgment, with no accountability to any tribunal save the people; and without such power the nation would be at the mercy of as many oligarchies as there are States. Nationality would only be possible by the permission of the States. the some authority, Mr. Speuker, is claimed by eminent jurists under the constitutional amendment abolishing slavery, and giving congress the power, by “ appropriate legislation, " to “ enforce” the provision. The word “appropriate” apeals to legislative discretion, ond the word “enforce” implies such compulsory measuresas Congress may deem “appropriate” for the purpose of ridding the country of every vestige of s aver in form and in fact. “There can be no denial); said Chief Justice Parsons. not long since, “ that when this whole amendment shall be adopted Congress will have the constitutional power be its exercise of this power wise or unwise to rend slavery out from our whole country, root and branch, leaf and fruit, and guard effectually against its return in any form, or under any guise, or to any extent.” The nation, in other words, having given freedom to 4 million people, can make that freedom a blessing by conferrin r it in substance, as well asin name. It not on y can do this, but is sacredly bound to do it. The right to freedom carries with it the right of way to it, and that right of way is the ballot. Without it the freedom of these people is a delusion and a lie. The freedmen of the South are not free, and cannot be, when left to the domination of their former masters, exasperated by their defeat in a war which outraed civilization by thus aiming to perpetuate their rule. I need not argue this proposition, because no man can dispute itwithout ignoring the most obvious principles of human nature, and closing his eyes to well authenticated facts of recent occurrence in the island of Jamaica and in the States lately in revolt. Sir, every gentleman on this floor knows what a shadow and a mockery is the freedom thus far vouchsafed to the millions now declared free by the Constitution, and that to commit their ortunes to the tender mercies of white rebels would be like committing the lamb to the jaws of the wolf. But if I am right, then Congress could unquestionably place the ballot in the hands of the loyal freedmen, and thus arm them with the power of self defense, and save them from a condition of pitiless serfdom, in comparison with which slaveryin its old form would e a blessing. I ask gentlemen, therefore, to remember, that should every proposed amendment of the Constitution now before this House be voted down, we shall not, I think, be wholly without a remedy for the evil we are so anxious to cure. Instead of restricting representation to actual suffrage, we can extend suffragtr to actual representation, which will be far better. It is true that the power of congress to guaranty republican governments in the States through its intervention with the question of suffrage has not hitherto been exercised; but this certainly does not disprove the existence of such power, nor the expediency of its exercise now, under an additional and independent constitutional grant, and when a fit occasion for it has come through the madness of treason. It will not be forgotten that we have entered upon a new dispensation. Slavery sleeps in its bloody shroud. Its shaping hand as we believe, will no longer mold our national policy at home or abroad. Its evil genius will no longer ins ire our public men, and give law to the nation from the supreme bench; but in the noonday radiance of universal liberty the government, I trust, in all its Depts, will find its speedy deliverance from the traminels of the ast. such, at least, is my hope. But, Mr. Speaker, I may be mistaken. We may not be able, at a single bound, to escape the beucmbing influence of slavery. Our exodus from the long and sore bonds e of the past may betedious an toilsome. Ourdwarfed manhood may require time and judicious tonics to restore its original vigor. I cannot feel at all confident in the opinion I have exressed, when I find so many distinguished gent emen on this floor in sisting that we are still bound by former interpretations of the Constitution, in the interest of slave. I therefore favor a constitutional amendment which shall make certain that which may otherwise remain doubtful. But I do not see how I can consistently support the amend.ment reported by the JtCommee, though I do not say that I will not. In the 1st place, it seems to me that it offends the moral sense of the country. It provides “that whenever the elective franchise shall be denied or abridged in any State on account of race or color, all persons of such race or color shall be excluded from the bssis of representation.” Sir, what right has any State “to deny or abridge the elective franchise on account of race or color?" To assent to such a proposition is to insult hn manitv and mock justice. It is, moreover, as absur as to deny or abridge the franchise on account of the distance across the Atlantic or the height of the Alleghanies. Why not say, in the plain affirmative words of the amendment submitted by the Gentfrom Massachuse“tts, [Mr. Lior, ] thatTh elective franch a shall nnl be denied or abridgedin any Stateon ccountofrace or color?" The distinguished chairman of the JtCommee concedes the right of a State under the Constitution to disfranchise its citizens for such cause, and so does my friendfrom NewYork, [Mr. CONKLING] If they are right, then the very thing to be done is to amend the Constitution in that particular. Have we any authority to sacrifice the rights of a whole race in the South in order to save ourselves from the evils of unequal representation, and thus compound with injustice and oppression? Will the world justify us in protecting our own political rights and abridging the rights of white rebels at the expense of millions of freedmen who will thus be made the vicarious victims of our policy? Would that be an honest payment of the debt we religiously owe them? y friendfrom Ohio [Mr. BINGHAM] differs with his colleagueson the JtCommee as to the right of a State to disfranchise her citizens, and defends the proposed amendment as a mere penalty, designed to re strain the States from violating their constitutional duty.