Mr. JENCKES. Mr. Speaker, the gravest question that can be presented to the Representatives of the people is a proposition to amend the fundamenta law of the e public. It should always be approached with esitation, considered duly, both with regard to the previous his to of the Republic and its probable future, an decidedu on onlyafter the most mature deliberation an full understanding of that which is proposed, and of its application. his proposition now under consideration, coming as it does from the JtCommee of 15 is before the House, with greater solemnity, if I may use the phrase, thair an that has been presented upon the motion o a single member. That committee demand for it our immediate consideration and action. We have a right, from the character of that committee and the business with which it is charged, to suppose that this proposition is a portion of that plan of reconstruction which they propose to submit to this Congress; and that in their wisdom they believe the best method of presenting their plan is thus in detail, commencing with a proposition to amend the constitution of the U.S. Having this grave sanction and being urged by the weight and authority of that committee, this proposition, as it seems to me, deserves a more fail consideration than it has received, or is likely to receive, in the present temper of the House., y opposition to this amendment is based upon several grounds. One would suppose that with the magnitude of the undertaking devolved upon this committee, aiming to heal a wound in the constitution of the Republic and to give new life to it hereafter, the would have presented a measure which was ounded upon principle, and which would stand the criticism of all parties, not only of the present time but of all future time. We should expect that such a measure would at least be based upon the principle of justice, to be carried out so as to accor equality to all the citizens of the States. But upon examining this proposition I find upon its face that it has not the principle of justice in it. In my judgment justice requires that the qualification o electors for members of this House and for electors of President and VEEP in other words, for the 2 opular branches of this great Governments ould be defined in the fundamental law. Upon this point let me quote the words of Madison, written in his mature years to a distinguished son of the Republic seeking advice from him. He says: "The right of suffrage, the rule ofapportionin representation and the mode of appoiptin to an from office. arefundamentalsin a ree government, and ought to be fixed by the constitution.” The offering of an amendment implies that there is a difficulty to be removed, and the proposmon for an amendment should be one that Will remove that difficulty. The difficulty hitherto found in the constitution as it stands is that the qualifications of these voters have been left for each of the States to determine within their several jurisdictions. In other words, the General Goyernment has made the several States the instruments or the means for determining those qualifications and for conducting the elections. This power has been used for mischief, and this amendment proposes that that mischief shall no longer intervene. That certainly should be the remedy proposed. Now the question of all others raised the amendment and presented for us to consider is this: it is now proposed to have the qualifications of these electors to be determined, not as it was in 1789 by some 13 constituencies, but by some 36 or more constituencies, with no other restrictions than those contained in the proviso. Will this prevent the recurrence of the past dif ficulties, and save us from such new ones as may be anticipated from the new state of things ifte constitution should remain as it is? It has been said that in the Convention of 1787 a difficult was found in fixing these qualifications so that they should be uniform in all the States; but that difficulty then was certainly not one of principle, for the property qualification existed in many if not in all of the States. If any other difficulty existed it is now removed, or substantially removed, since in 3/4ths of the States that would be required to ratify an amendment on this subject, nearly all of them have made the suffrage so nearly universal that the distinction is scarcely material. The qualifications of voters for members of Congress are so nearly alike that the differences can easily be reconciled, and when once reconciled, they can be incor orated in a provision for an amendment of t ie constitution. Certainly, sir, it is less dificult in:1. Congress composed of less than 300 men to agree to a proposition which will meet the views of the whole country on this question of suffrage than to adopt a proposition which, when submitted to and adopted by the requisite numberof States, must be carried into effect by as many Legislatures as there are States and in a different manner by each, and which in being carried into effect must be acted upon by as man 1,000s of men in State conventions and cgislatures as there are 100s in this Congress. The old difficulty, therefore, does not now exist, and we can, if we choose, having in view the difficulties of the past and wishing to avoid any in the future, meet this question and settle it upon the principle of justice by endeavorin to insert a new provision in the fundameuta law, which when adopted will place the qualifications of voters for members of Congress beyond the reach of State conventiOns or Legislatures. Again, in carrying this amendment into effect, I find the principle of justice overlooked and an essential element of injustice infused into it. If this amendment should go into effect, the laws of the States continuing as they now stand, there are 4 million free men, 3/5ths only of whom were counted heretofore in the basis of representation, but all of whom will now be excluded not only from the basis of representation, but from ever having a voice in the election of Representatives. e yield to States the power to exclude an entire race living among them, which has hitherto been a class by themselves, but who must now be counted as citizens. They may exclude not only that race, but people of other races who immigrate to this country, and thus contravene the ongsettled policy upon which we open our ports to immigrants from all climes, and of alll nations and races, and seek here to build up a nation which will not restu n the basis of any narrow or clannish origin, but which will embrace the best blood of the whole human race. Again, Mr. Speaker, an amendment proposing to fix the qualifications of voters for members of this House should contain the element of equality. A man in Vermont should have just as much voice in electing a Representative ere as a man in Alabama. They are equally citizens of the U.S. In electing members of this House, when the electors deposit their ballots, they cease to be citizens of the small republics composing this great nation; I they are citizens of the great Republic; they are exercising their duty to the paramount authorit, the supreme government of the land, and to the people. This amendment proposea to leave the determination of these qualifications to the Legislatures or constitutional conventions in every State. All of them may agree on several points. All may require that voters shall be male citizens possessin accrtain qualification of age and residence. Ha other points they may differ essentially. Some inayimpose the additional requirement of paying taxes; some mayfix an educational requirement; some may admit aliens; some may admit those who have merel declared their intention to become citizens. T as we may find constituencies composed of different classes of citizens or inhabitants voting upon varying qualilications in different districts and all electing members of this House. such, it seems to me, should not be the case. There not being an equality, of course the desirable element of uniformity is wantin. The fact that a man is entitled to vote in In 1 ana for a Representative to this House is no. evidence that if he should remove to Kentucky he will be entitled to vote there after the required residence. In the State towhich he goes he is not entitled in this respect to the privileges and immunities which he enjoyed in the State which he leaves.