Mr. Boot, it is very well known that I have always heretofore been opposed to any change of the kind contemplated by this bill, but while opposing that change. I have uniformly asserted that if it became inevitable, if the change was certain, I should insist upon this change as an accompaniment. It is agreed for I suppose when my honorable friendfrom Rhode }. [Mr. ANTHoNY] and myself agree to it, it will be taken to be the universal sentiment of the body that the right of suffrage is not a natural right, but a conventional right, and that it may be limited by the community the body politic, in any manner they see fit aii consistent with their sense of propriety and safety. The proposition now before the Senate is to confer on the colored people of this District the right of franchise; that is, the advocates of the bill say that that will be safe and prudent and proper, and will contribute, of course, to the happiness of the mass of the inhabitants of the District; and they further say that no reason can be given why a man of one color should not vote as well as a man of another color, especially when both are equally members of the same society, equally subjected to its burdens, equally to be, called upon to defend it in the field, and all that. I agree to a great portion of that. I do not know and never i. know any very good reason why a black man should not vote as well as a white man, except simply that all the white men said, “We do not like it.” I do not know of any very good reason why a black woman should not marry a white man, but I suppose the white man would give about the same reason, he does not like to do it. There are certain things in which we do not like to go into partnership with the people of different races and between whom and ourselves there are tribal antina thies. It is now proposed to break down that barrier, so far as political power may be concerned, and admit both equally to share in this privilege; and since the barrier is to be broken down, and since there is to be a change, I desire another change, for which I think there is quite as good a reason, and a little better, perhaps, than that offered for this. I propose to extend this privilege not only to males, but to females as well; and I should like to hear even the most astute and learned Senator upon this floor give any better reason for the exclusion of females from the right of suffrage than there is for the exclusion of negroes. want to hear that reason. I should like to know it. Now, for my part, I very much prefer, if the franchise is to be widened, if more people are to be admitted to the exercise of it, to allow females to participate than I would negroes; but certainly I shall never give my consent to the disfranchisement of females who live in society, who pay taxes, who are governed by the laws, and who have a right, I think, even in that respect, at times to throw their weight in the balance for the purpose of correcting the corruptions and the viciousness to which the male portions of the family tend. I think they have a right to throw their influence into the scale; and I should like to hear any reason to be offered why this should not be. Taxation and representation ought to go hand in hand. That we have heard here until all ears have been wearied with it. If taxation and representation are to go hand in hand, why should they not go hand in hand with regard to the female as well as the male? Is there any reason why Mrs. Smith should be governed by a goat head of a mayor any more than John Smith, if he could correct it? He is paid by taxes levied and assessed on her property just in the same way as he is paid out of taxes levied on the property of John. If she commits an offense she is subjected to be tried, convicted, and punished by the other sex alone; and she has no protection whatever in any way either as to her property, her person, or to her liberty very often. There is another thing, too. A great many reflections have been made upon the white race keeping the black in slavery. I should like to know whether we have not partially kept the female sex in a condition. slavery, particularly that part of them who labor for a living? I do not know of any reason in the world ". a woman should be confined to 2 dollars a week when a man gets 2 dollars a day and does not do any more work than she does, and does not do that which he does do quite so well at all times. Mr. President, if we are to adventure our selves upon this wide sea of universal suffrage, I object to manhood suffrage. I do not know anything specially about manhood which dedicates it to this purpose more than exists about womanhood. omanhood to me is rather the more exalted of the two. It is purer; it is higher; it is holier; and it is not purchasable at the same price that the other is, in my judgment. If you want to widen the franchise so as to poif. your ballot box, throw the virtue of the country into it; throw the temperance of the country into it; throw the purity of the country into it; throw the angel element, if I may so express myself, into it. [Laughter] Let there be as little diabolism as possible, but as much of the divinity as you can get. Therefore, Mr. President, I put this as a serious question for the consideration of this body. In the presence of the tendencies of the age and in recognition of this movement, which my honorable friendfrom Massachusetts is always talking about, and of which he seems to have had preme nition long before it came to any of the rest of us I say in the face of this movement and in recognition of it, I earnestly beg all patriots here to think of this proposition. It is inevitable. How are you to resist when it is made the demand of 15 million American females for this right, which can be granted and which can be as safely exercised in their hands as it can in the hands of negroes? And I would ask gentlemen while they are bestowing this ballot which has such merit in it, which has such a healing efficacy for all ills, which educates people, and which elevates them above the common level of mankind, and which, above all, protects them, how they will go home and lookin the face their sewing women, their laboring women, their single women, their taxed women, their overburdened women, their women who toil till midnight for the barest subsistence, and say to them, “We have it not for you; we could give it to the negro, but we could not give it to you.” How would the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts face the recent meeting of the Anti Slavery Society in Philadelphia? How would he answer the potent arguments which were offered there and which challenge an answer even from the Senate of the U.S., when made by women of the highest intellect. perhaps, on the planet, and women who are determined, knowing their rights, to maintain them and to secure them? I ask honor abie Senators of his faith how they are to answer those ladies there? If this is refused, how are Senators to answer, especially those who recognize the onward force of this movement, who are up to the tendencies of the times, who desire to keep themselves in front of the great army of humanity which is marching forward just as certainly to universal suffrage as to universal manhood suffrage. There ore, Mr. President. I offer this amendment and ask for the yeas&nays upon it. They yeo.&nays were ordered.