Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Speaker, it is utterly impossible, by any rules of construction that have ever properly been applied to language, to place any sue constructionas that upon the simpleclause in the constitution which has been rea. Iadmit that, in the debates in the Virginia convention, at the time when the constitution was under discussion in that body, Mr. Madison, in a running debate, is reported as haviu used certain language which is suscept ible of the construction which the gentleman has placed upon it. But, sir, although such is the act, yet the language of the constitution itself, the uniform construction of this clause by those who took part in framing thatinstrument, the exposition of it by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist, and by other distinguished authors, show conclusively that u to the time when the Gentfrom Pennsyvania avowed his peculiar doctrine in the House the other day no man in the U.S. ever dreamed that any such power existed in Congress. It has been conceded, wherever the question has been raised, before the courts, in the Halls of congross, and everywhere else, that the power to regulate the right of suffrage exists in the States, and in the States alone. Mr. Hamilton, in the Federalist, No. 52, treating of this very question, uses the following lan"guage: V The 1st view to be taken of this part of the Government the HoRep]relatesto the qualifications of the electorsand the elected. Those of the former are to be the samewith thoseof the electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislatures. The definition of the right of sufirage is very justly regardedasa fundamental article of republican governiuoiit. It wasincumbent on the convention. t. crcfqre, tp define and establish this right in the constitution. To haveleft it o on for theoccasional regulation of the Congress won (1 have beeniin propor for the reasonsjustmentioned. To havesub mitted it to the lERlSlflllVO discretion of the States would have beenimproper for the samereason; and for the additional reason that itwould have rendered too dependenton the State governments that branch oftho Federal Governmentwhich ought to bedepend eat on the peoplealone. To have reduced the ilierent qualifications in the different States to one Uniform rule would probablyhave beenas dissatisfactory to some of the States as it would have been difficult to the Convention. The provision made by the convention appears. therefore, to in the best that lay within their option. It must besatisfactoryto every State, because it is conformable to the standard already establishedor which may be established by the State itself. It will besafe to the U.S. be cuuse, being fixed by the State constitution s, ” is not alternble by the State governments: and it cannot be feared that the peopleof the StatesWill alter this part of their constitutions in such manner as to abridge the rights securedto them by the Federal Constituum.” I propose to read one other authority on this question, although I submit that, without any authority on the subject, no just rules of construction that have ever been applied to the exposition of language would sustain the interpretation which the Gentfrom Pennsylvania has placed upon that clause of the constitution. I wi I read telanguage of Mr. Curtis, who, in the 2nd volume of his History of the constitution, page 200. says, in speaking, of this very clause of the constitution: “The committee of detail, after a review of all these caodnaspitdeedrations. presented a scheme that was well to meet the difficulties of the case. They proposed that the same iersonswho. by the laws of the severalstates were a iiiitted to vote for members of the most numerous branch of their own Legislatures, should havethe right to votefor the Representatives of Congress. The niloption of this principle avoided the necessityof disfriincliising any portion of the people of a State by a system of qualifications unknown to their laws. As the States were the best judges of the circumstances and temper of their own people, it was certainly best to oonciliatetheni to the L support of the new constitution by this concession. twas possible. indeed. but not very probable. that they might admit foreigners to the right of voting without the previous qualification of citizenship. It. was possible, too, that theymight establish universal suffrageinits most unrcstricted sense. But against all these evils, there existed one great security, namely. that the mischicfs of nn absolutely free In Erage would he felt most severely by themselves in their own do mestic concerns: and against the special danger to he apprehended from the indiscriminate admission of foreigners to the right of voting. another feature of the pro osed launvetbe national legislature power to with old from persons of foreign birth the privilezes of general citizenship, although a State might confer upon them the power of voting without previous naturalization.” There is a standard work on the constitution of the U.S. where the law is fully and plainly laid down as possible and I would not have deemed it proper to make this exposition had not an intolerable construction been placed upon the constitution, when there is noting in that instrument, or in anything connected with the history of the revision referred to, which for a moment will car such a construction. I have already trespassed on the good nature of the House further than I designed. I only rose for the purpose of alluding to these 2 points. At some other time I may discuss all of these amendments to the constitution.