Mr. RAYMOND. I rise simply to remark that if the gentleman understood me to say no amendments whatever were needed to the constitution, and the constitution was better without them, he misunderstood me, for I expressly said on this very point of representation that some amendment was necessary. I refer not only to the Gentfrom NewYork, but to what I take to be an authorized utterance of one at the other end of the avenue. I am glad the gentleman, has explained it in that way. Now, sir, since I have referred to that, I believe I am right, for I have no doubt that this is the proclamation, the command of the POTUS, made and put forth by authority in advance, and at a time when this Congress was legislating on this very question; made, in my judgment, in violation of the privileges of this House; made in such a way that centuries ago, had it been made to Parliament by a British king, it would have cost him his head. But, sir, we pass that by; we are tolerant of usurpation in this tolerant Government of ours. Now, sir, let me consider what is the meaning of the proposition made by the committee; how far it ought to be affected by any modifications. It has been amended by the committee in obedience to what is supposed to be the sense of the House. The committee have reported back the simple proposition that representation shall be apportioned among the States in the portion to their numbers; provided that won the elective franchise shall be denied or abridged in any State on account of race or color, all persons therein of such race or color shall be excluded from the basis of representation. But some of our friends are apprehensive that this is an implied permission to the States to regulate the elective franchise within the States. Now, sir, I venture to say that there is no good philologist who, upon reading this proposed amendment, will for a single moment pretend that it either grants a privilege or takes away a privilege from any State on that subject. It does, however, punish the abuse of that privilege if it exists. Now, I hold that the States have the right, and always have had it, to fix the elective franchise within their own States and I hold that this does not take it from them. Ought it to take it from them? Ought the domestic affairs of the States to be infringed upon by Congress so far as to regulate the restrictions and qualifications of their voters? How many States would adopt such a proposition? How many would allow Congress to come within their jurisdiction to fix the qualification of their voters? Would NewYork? Would Pennsylvania? Would the northwestern States? I am sure not one of them would. Therefore, if you should take away the right which now is and always has been exercised by the States, by fixing the qualification of their electors, instead of getting 19 States, which is necessary to ratify this amendment, you might possibly get 5. I venture to say you could not get 5 in this Union and that is an answer, in the opinion of the committee, to all that has been said on this subject. But it grants no right. It says, however, to the State of SCarolina another slave States, true, we leave where it has been left for 80 years the right to fix the elective franchise, but you must not abuse it; if you do, the constitution will impose upon you a penal, and will continue to inflict it until you shall have corrected your actions. Now, any man who knows anything about the condition of aspiration and ambition for power which exists in the slave States knows that one of their chief objects is to rule this country. It was to ruin it if they could not rule it. They have not been able to ruin it, and now their great ambition will be to rule it. If a State abuses the elective franchise and takes it from those who are the only loyal people there, the constitution says to such a State, you shall lose power in the halls of the nation, and you shall remain where you are, a shriveled and dried up nonentity instead of being the lords of creation, as you have been, so far as America is concerned, for years past. Now, sir, I say no more strong inducement could ever be held out to them, no more severe punishment could ever be inflicted upon them as States. If they exclude the colored population they will lose at least 35 Representatives in this Hall. If they adopt it they will have 83 votes. Take it away from them and they will have only from 45 to 48 votes, all told, in this Hall; and then, sir, let them have all the copperhead assistance they can get, and liberty will still be triumphant. Now, I prefer that to an immediate declaration that all shall be represented; for if you make them all voters and 1let them into this Hall, not one beneficial act for the benefit of the freedmen or for the benefit of the country could ever be passed. Their 83 votes, with the Representatives of the 5 Points and other dark corners, would be sufficient to overrule the friends of process here, and this nation would be in the ban s of secessionists at the very next congressional election and at the very next presidential election. I do not, therefore, want to grant them this privilege at least for some years. [I want, in the meantime, that our Chris tian men shall go among the freedmen and teach them what their duties are as citizens; they know them now much better than their masters, and I hope their masters will take notice of what they learn. I say I want our Christian men to o among them, the philanthropists of the North, the honest Methodists, my friends, the Hard shell Baptists, and all other s; and then, 4 or 5 years hence, when these freedmen shall have been made free indeed, when they shall have become intelligent enough and there are sufficient loyal men there to control the representation from those States, I shall be glad to see them admitted here. But I do not want them to have representationI say it plainly I do not want them to have the right of suffrage before this Congress has done the great work of regenerating the constitution and laws of this country according to the principles of the DeclarIndep. Hence I object whthe amendment of my friendfrom Ohio, [Mr. SCHENCK] He says that if we allow these people representation in portion as they extend protestffrage we shall encourage them to extend it to the colored race. Well, that is the very objection. They will give the suffrage to their menials, their house servants, those they can control, and elect whom they please to make our laws. That is not the kind of increase of suffrage I want. I want all such men out off from it. But when they have said to all the freedmen, to the former slaves, You are men and you shall be represented, ” then let them come here. I shall not be here to see them, as I did their masters, who a few years since drew pistols and daggers upon me when I was making such a speech as it is, yet a free peoplewill be here represented, and they will take care of themselves. But I have another objection to the amendment of my friendfrom Ohio. His proposition is to apportion representation according to the male citizens of the States. Why has he put in that word “ male?” It was never in the constitution of the U.S. before. Who make a crusade against women in the constitution of the nation? [Laughter.] Is my friend as much afraid of the irrias the gentlemen on the other side of the House are afraid of the rivalry of the negro? [Laughter] I do not think we ought to disure the constitution with such a provision. find that every unmarried man is opposed to the proposition. Whether married men have particular reason for dreading interference from that quarter I know not. g[Laughter.] I certainly shall never vote to insert the word “male” or the word white” in the national constitution. Let these things be attended to by the States. Now, sir, there is another fatal objection to the proposition of my friendfrom Ohio. If have been rightly informed as to the number, there are from 15 to 20 Representatives in the northern States founded upon those who are not citizens of the U.S. In NewYork I think there are 3 or federal Representatives founded upon the foreign 3 certainly and so it is in poVpisucleantisoinn, Iowa, and other northern States. There are 15 or 20 northern Representatives that would be lest by that amendment and given to the South whenever they grant the elective franchise to the negro. New, sir, while I have not any particular regard for any foreigner who goes against me, yet I do not think it would be wise to put into the constitution or send to the people a proposition to amend the constitution which would take such Representatives from those States and which therefore they will never adopt. I have no hope that any such proposition would ever be adopted. Let us try to be practical. On the 6th ay of December last I introduced a proposition to amend the constitution founding representation upon the voting basis and excluding the foreign population, as the proposition of my friendfrom Ohio does, it was dear to my heart, for I had been stateing it for 3 months. [Laughter.. but when I came to consult the committee of 15 and found that the States would not adopt it, surrendered it. New, cannot my friendfrom Ohio give up his darling, too? [Laughter.] I had another proposition, which I hope may again be brought forward. It is this: All national and State laws shall be equally up licable to every citizen and no discrimination shall be made on account of race or color. There is the genuine proposition; that is the one I love; that is the one which I hope, before we separate, we shall have educated ourselves up to the idea of adopting, and that we shall have educated our people up to the point of ratifying. But it would not be wise to entangle the present proposition with that one. The one might drag (own the other; and although I have not obtained what I want, I am content to take what, after comparing ideas with others, I believe we can carry through the States; and I believe we can carry this proposition. Some gentlemen say this principle if adopted will be abused. Some learned gentlemen on the other side, for whose feelings I have great regard, seem to think so and when I say “en the other side” I do not want to be misunderstoodI mean some of our friends on the other side of the Chamber. [Laughter.] The others there have not spoken; but I have as much regard for the others when they speak. it is said that this principle might be evaded by saying that no man who had ever been a slave shall vote, and that that would not. be a disfranchisement on account of race or color. Allow me to say that that suggestion must have been made hastily and not with that wellconsidered judgment which generally characterizes those gentlemen. Sir, no man in America ever was or ever could be a slave if he was a white man. I know white men have been held in bondage contrary to law. But there never was a court in the U.S., in a slave State or a free State, that has not admitted that if one held as a slave could prove himself to be white he was that instant free and therefore such an exclusion, on account of previous condition of slavery, must be an exclusion on account of race or color. Therefore that objection falls to the ground. Now, the question is narrowed down to the sole question of a choice between the proposition of the committee and the proposition of the Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. Summon] There is no necessity, then, unless I desire to exhibit myself, for my proceeding any further in this matter. Nor do I propose to go into an examination of what was perhaps the not quite ertiuent argument of the Gentfrom NewYork, [Mr. Ramona] He want is that 2/3rds of each branch of this Congress shall vote affirmatively on this question and while I should take pleasure in having the President approve of our conduct, yet he as nothing to say about it on this question. We do not send it to him and ask is opinion about it, and therefore it was all the more kind in him to send us his opinion without being asked for it.