Mr. BBBMWELL. That is whatI appreheaded and it is difficult to see, among all the amendments which are now pending, anyone of them, or any combination of them, that will meet the desire of the majority, not to say 2/3rds of this House. I apprehend that the members of this House desire to act so as to secure the support of a proor majority here. I apprehend also that they csire to make this amendment such that it will meet with the sanction of a sufficient number of the States of the Union to make it effectual. Now, sir, it is in vain for this Congress to launch an amendment which shall die on the road through the Legislatures. We hear objections urged here to the basis of representation upon actual voters. Is there not sufficient reason to believe that if this amendment were adopted it would erish for want of the sanction of 3/4ths of the Legislatures of the U.S.? How many States can we afford to lose? It is one thing for us to make an amendment that shall satisfy this body: it is another thing to make an amendment that shall be proclaimed as a part of the fundamental law of this land. I have objections, fundamental objections, to the resolution reported by this committee. In the 1st place, the objection that has so often been noticed in this debate, that this provision is loose, is well taken. It allows its own object to be defeated by leaving the door wide enfor any State to prescribe a property qunlication, and thereby practically disfranchise the very class of persons that is amendment is desi nod to protect. y, it does more than this, sir. In my opinion, it offers a premium to the oligarchy of any State, to the oligarchioal principle in any State, to surround itself with a disualifying law, as by that means, if the disqualification be placed upon any other ground than color or race, such 0iarchy can have Representatives in this Hall, and deny, as it inclines ever to deny, the elective franchise to the body of the people. Sir, the instruction offered by the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. Lawnsses] hasthis merit, thatit does not leave that door open; but several of the other amendments offered here leave this door o on. They would allowa State like NCarolina, by a law providing that for some frivolous office all may vote, to declare herselfa State in which all are voters, and thereupon demand Representation here. It is true, the amendment offered by the Gentfrom Ohio does say, “voters qualified to vote for the most numer ous branch of the State Legislature, ” but that amendment, in my opinion, is nothingmore than an amendment providing for a basis of representation accoring to actual voters. Now, the proper mode of arranging the basis of representation is accordin to the population of the class who do vote. for instance, if the black man is debarred from voting, make the basis of representation the white population, and not the white voters; and if black men and white men both vote, then make the basis of representation the white and black population; if the Indian vote, extend the basis accordingly. An amendment which I did intend to propose would provide for these several difficulties. In the 1st place, it would obviate the objection which comes to us from the NewEngland States against making mere votes the basis of representation. In the next place, it would provide against the difficulty which is let in upon us by thisamendmentto the constitution offered by the committee; and lastly, itwould provide against one difficulty which exists in every amendment heretofore offered and that is this: there is not an amendment which has been proposed upon this floor but what leaves the door open for any State that chooses to disfranchise its black population and to admit its females to the right of suffrage; and they, being voters, are to be counted in fixing the basis of representation on this floor.