Mr. ASHLEY, of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, I amill litted today to speak, having a sore throat which almost prevents my talking at all. 5 and I am unprepared, not knowing until this morning that the sun would ever rise on the day i when 1 would have an opportunity to discuss l this subject. But now an opportunity offering for me to speak upon the important matters ending before this Congress and the country, i cannot allow it to pass without saying some{ thing; and more especially do I desire so to do because in some respects I differ from many with whom I am affiliated here. We have passed through a war in regard to which ithas been grandiloquentl y said the world never saw its equal. Certainly it is in many respects the most important that the history of this country records. To initiate a nation that is l to exist for a little time and then vanish like a l, vision is an easy thing but to place a nation 1 upon such foundation that it can stand the trial O time and demonstrate its adaptability to the i wants of a community like ours, in a country I extending 3000 miles from ocean to ocean, is a triumph and such I believe to be this nation and Government of ours. But, sir, after the clash of arms has passed we must not beguile ourselves with the belief that everything is settled. There are insidious movements made in time of peace which are more dangerous than the attempts of men with arms in their hands to strike down a Government; because in the midst of war the feelings of all men are aroused, and they have their eyes it on all the measures taken; while in time of peace men are lulled into security, and plans that are laid to overthrow or change the Government are more likely to make progress. such was the origin of the late rebellion, which assumed the gigantic proortions we have seen and grappled and crushe. Now that the war is over, we should be conscious of the immense responsibility resting upon us in reinstating civil rule, and must look to the consequences likely to follow. No man need tell me that the American people will maintain a system which regards 1/3rd of the national territory as provincial. They will insist that Congress shall come speedily up to the work of bringing in the States lately inrebellion to an equality with the rest and if we fritter away our time, if We.go home at the end of this session without making some certain and eEective provision for bringing in those States, if we iffer among ourselves and insist upon a multitude of little matters, leaving the great and essential points of reconstruction unetermined, the time will come, and speedil, when the representatives of those States late y in rebellion will by some means secure their entrance into these Halls. Our Constitution is futile, if by law and resolutionwe can indefinitely, and atour caprice, postpone the day when it shall have equal effect, give uniform protection, and insure to each State the right of self. government and the common and fundamental privilege of representation throughout all parts of our country. Now, sir, I know that to be so. Gentlemen may delnde themselves with the idea that they can carry these southern States along in this, way by military power. So they can just now. But I tell you that even those men who have been in the ranks of the Union Army during the war will not always consent to be voting against the reconstruction of the Union upon abasis common North and South and for that reason I desire to see some steps taken immediately to define the grounds we can safely insist upon as essential in reconstruction a basis p ain, short,just, honorable, generous, on which loyalty can rally, and to which only captions demagogues can object. have been satisfied for a long time that many of the measures proposed here cannot be passed. Why is it that we have spent here day after day and week after week over a Freedmens Bureau bill? It is because we believed that something ought to be done to protect the late slaves. ud practically we in this House and in the other branch of Congress showed our willingness to pass such a measure, provided it should onlyextend to the States which i had been in rebellion. But when it is proposed to pass a law which shall apply generally throughout the country, to States that opposed the rebellion as well as I those that supported it, you find that members I of our own warty are not agreed upon such ameasure. e had a bill before as yesterday and some days before fortheprotection of civil rights one that had passed the Senate and after an elaborate discussion here, that bill could not marshal a majority in its favor. Was it simplybecause it provided that no State should have the right to pass laws discrim inating between its citizens Thatwas simply what we voted for in the Freedmens Bureau bill. But when that same principle was incor porated into a bill which would ally to our own States as well as the States WlllC were in rebellion, then we are not willing the rule shall be applied and why is it that men of my own party, from NewYork, Massachusetts, Ohio, and California vote in such manner as that? Do we occup a position maintainable before the people O this country when we are willing to vote for a bill applicable to only the southern States in a certain manner, but will not vote that it shall apply to all the States? Now, if this bill in relation to civil rights is not properor constitutional in all respects, then most assuredly the President was rightin vetoing the Freedmens Bureau bill, because it imposed the same terms u ipn a certain number of the States. I do not believe we have aright to specially legislate for some States in amanner not constitutional and proper for all. If we claim that the northern States may make class legislation, then the others have the same right. gSir, I am afraid we have been s quanderin our time away in these matters. lilo should ook only to the essential requisites upon which we intendto insist. The Constitution of the U.S. is an instrument that we should not lightly touch in the way of amendment. There should be grave cause for amendment before we undertake to change it. If such grave cause exists, then we should be as willing to amend that instrument as any other law. Several amendments to the Constitution were adopted soon after its formation; and it has lately been amended so as to abolish slavery, that curse which brought on the war. The next important change which I think should be made is in regard to the basis of representation in this House. It should be made in a liberal spirit, in such manner that the best interests of the whole country will be maintained. Let us not be influenced by men who say, “We admit the propriety of the change, but insist that it shall be made in a certain manner, so that our section of country shall not lose by it in any way whatever.” An amendment has passed this House to put into the Constitution of the U.S., not the direct authorit perhaps, but words by which you acknowl edge the authority of States to make discrimination on account of race or color, in giving political rights and powers; an admission not offensively made in the Constitution as it stands, and a fact which, though true, it is in bad taste and policy to flaunt to the world in the Constitution ofour Republic. I know that many men in this House voted for that amendment, while $hey execrated the polic and management which drove themto it. They desired to avoid occupying such aposition; but they were driven to it because of the sectional argument and power used here against acertain other proposition based on the eternal principles O justice and of right views of representation, on the pretext that it would lessen the relative power of certain States which happen to be located in glorious old NewEngland. Now that SCarolina has lost her scepter, is the mantle of sanctity to fall around the prerogatives of 2 or 3 little States in the North?. That other proposition was that representation in Congress should be based upon the number of citizens allowed the right to vote. Now, sir, as a fundamental principle of representative democrac, I cannot see than any link is lacking in the cmonstration that: such system If this country were so small in geographical extent that althose entitled to share in legislative power could meet in one assembly, who would take part in that assembly? Would women, would children, would the insane, would slaves, and others excluded from the right of voting, act as members of such a democratic Legislature? No, sir, only those whom the country recognizes as having the right to vote in such a pn mary meeting would be allowed to articipate in that governmental assemblage. That bein the fact, I ask, when the country has increas to such nd proportions that you cannot call a genera meeting of that sort, what is the phil osophic consequence in reference to representation? Why, sir, that a certain number of individual voters who do not present themselves in person may send a representative. If we were now establishing our government, what would be thought of the proposition of ten men who should say, “True, we are only ten, but we claim the same representation as 100, because we have 90 women and children at home?” Why, sir, such a proposition would be scouted. In my estimation, there is no sense in the argument that because a man happens to be surrognded by persons who are not entitled to have their own voices heard, he should for that reason have more influence and power in the Government than a man living in another section of the count and having no such surroundings. It is the argument of aristoc racy, and strikes down democratic right by the same reasoning, and no other, which defends ayivileged class in its claim of right to govern by reason of birth, wealth, and custom. But it was urged that the principle of representation based on voters could not be adopted, because some of the NewEngland States, or I believe only one of those States objected on the ground, not that they would lose representation directly, but that Some other States would positively gain something. Sir, after all the glorious sacrifices that NewEngland has made for our nation during the Revolution, and in the war of the rebellion, after all the lanrels which she has won, I had hoped that she would manifest a spirit of liberality, and that, at the present crisis when it is proper, if not imperatively necessary, that a change in the basis of representation should be made, she would not act the part of the dog in the manger, apd object. to a wise and just proposition, because some other State will realize under it some little advantage, which relatively the northeastern States do not. The argument against that proposition was that California would gain 2 or 3 Representatives. Sir, what is the position of California. That is a State to which hardy, industrious, enterprising men from the eastern States have gone, and have developed a country which now exorts between 50 and 7hve million dollars of gold and silver perannum. She yearly contributes that amount to the national affluence and is it maintained that a basis of representation, thus well founded in principle, must be rejected because such a State will get 2 or 3 additional Representatives? I affirm that 100,000 men who are all producers, who are liable to be called into your armies, who are paying taxes on their in comes, are entitled, as a matter of justice, though there are in their neighborhood few or no wo men or children or slaves, tomore representation than 20,000 men who happen to be surrounde by 80,000 non-voters, the products of the labor of these 20,000 being all absorbed in sustainin that community of 100,000. eta principle of representation so well based received only of representation is the true one. 30 votes in this House. This llprejudihcc y to go against California is akin in its fo cupidity which slew the hen that laid golden eggs. The Gentfrom NewYork [Mr. Coxs Line ] presented to this House an estimate, approximately and practically correct, of the results of the various constitutional changes as to representation in case of their adoption. From that estimate I find the following facts in case the voter basis were adopted: Pram! Voter basic. bumassachnset 10 12 hodeIsland 2 2 nnnntiout 4 4 a 80 iehigan. 6 7. Illinois. Penn lvnnia. 24 24 NewYork. 31 &5 California. 3 6. 58 Thus it will be seen that the 6 NewEngland States gain 3 members, and the 6 Western States named gain 2, while NewYork gains 4 and California 3. thns the amendment harmonizes with natural laws, and distributes political power in a just ratio to the natural centers of business and production, and makes the voter in anyone State the peer in power with a voter in any other State and it may be well to observe that as these.estimates are based on the number of male residents in each State, and as the amendment bases representation on male citizen voters, it is probable NewYork and California will not gain, by at least one or 2 each, so many as the estimate shows, because in these 2 States the uli residents are in greater ratio to their poulation than will be found in other States. his amendment leaves, as now, to each State the iintrammeled power to regulate the right of voting in its own borders. A State may, as some now do, allow alien residents to vote, but they cannot be counted in the representative census, for it is not correct in principle or consistent with national security and dignity that aliens shall be represented and have a power in our Congress. The naturalization laws are liberal, r uiring only a short residence sufficient to enab of the foreigiraier to bepoine acquainted with our institution, identified with our interests, and in sympathy with our success; and he who refers to be an alien ought not to enjoy political advantages ually with a citizen. This amendment, too, allows the States, in their discretion, to grant suffrage from time to time to such citizens as have become qualified to exercise the right, and so fast as the privilege is accorded the State protanto gains in its representation. It. also discourages the enactment of laws in the South or elsewhere requiring along residence of persons coming from other States as a rerequisite to voting. Sound in nciple, it asa happy adaptation to settle the ifferences, quiet the passions, and dispel the preAudices now standing in our way. s to the other proposition which passed thisHouse for basing representation upon population, exclusive of anv races the members of which might be excluded from votin, let me say that, putting aside the question O its jus tice. there was never any possibility that it could be embodied in the Constitution by the approval of the requisite number of States or could even )ass this Congress. If the members of this lzlouse did notknow this, they ought to have known it. I knew, as many others did. thatve were only wasting our time in the discusSion and passage of such a proposition. If the theories broached in favor of immediate and universal negro suffragp are even true, what then? You have not the power to enact the theory into law, while the exigency of the country is such that weshould hasten to do the best within the range of possibility without delay. 8, I believe that the time willcome when negroes, becomingeducatedand acquiringproperty, will be allowed to vote; but t cy must be introduced to the full enjoyment of the rights and powers of citizenshipgradually That proposed constitutional omendment oes not provide for any such gradual process. It declares that unless theybe at once all admitted as voters the State excludin a portion of them shall have no representation or even those allowed to vote. Mr. Speaker, I do not know that we shall be a sin called upon to act on this question; but I now that the proposition to base representation on voters is the only one that can be secured. If we are notwilling to ucce t thatrule, we shall obtain no change in the constitution on this subject. If a proposition of this so. cannot be successful here at this session, I shouldlilre anybodyto tell me when we can get a change. It must he a very sanguine imagination that can see in the future any time when the Union party will be stronger in this Congress than it is today. That time is far off, because now that the war is over there are numerous new questions arising to distract our constituencies; questions of trade, of finance, ofJaritf, &c. That amendment basing representation on voters is founded in justice, is ased on eternal principle, and it affords the solution for many iliicu ties which have arisen under our present representative system. t has been urged that we must control the southern States as to their representation, because they are proposing, at east in Virginia, to declare that a man coming from another State must be a resident 5 years before he can vote. If they can do that, and perhaps they can, they can make a requirement of 20 years residence to qualify as avoter a man going there from another State; and thus they might continue the political power of the State for 20 years in the hands of the present residents of the State. It is said that they are rebels. Granting that this is so, still they have the power in their hands; and I do not think it Will be stricken from their grasp. The effect of the voter basis will be that the representation of a State in Congress will be reduced in proortion to the number of men that it exclu es from the exercise of the right of suffrage. If a 100,000loyal men from the northern States settle in the State of Virginia, and she does not allow them to vote, she gains no increased representation by the addition to her po ulstion. If the basis of representation were ounded on voters, the States would be induced to forego the passage of such laws as those to which have referred; while a constitutional provision referring sim 1y to the exclusion from votin on accounto race or color would have no such effect. If we adopt the principle of basing representation on voters, it will, as I have said, permit and encourage the introduction of negro suffrage. Besi es, by such a change in our constitution, we woul, adopting the whole proposition establish the principle that direct taxes shall be levied on property wherever it may be located, according to its value. That proposition was defeated, I believe, because California would gain by it2 or 3 representntives.