Mr. HOWARD. I have one word to say upon that amendment. I desire to state, as briefly and clearly as I am able, some of the conse nences to which it will lead if adopted. It dec ares that when the right to vote at any election for those 5 several classes of public officers shall be denied to any person of 21 years of age and a citizen of the U.S., that person shall not be included in the count in forming the basis of representation. How is this to be carried out, supposing it to be ado ted? What will be its practical workings when made a part of the Constitution by a formal ratification? The census taker Will find it necessary, whenever he makes the count of the inhabitants of the particular State or district where he is actin, to ascertain, as precisely as he is able, an to note down in Iiis tables the various persons within the State who are capacitated to vote for on one or all of these 5 classes of ulilic ot'ccrs. Fpr instance, he will be required to note down in his returns what classes of voters are allowed to vote for Governor of the State; how many are authorized to vote for Lieutenant Governor; who are authorized to vote for members of the State Legislature; who for electors of President and VEEP; who for the judicial officers of the State; and so on to the end of the category. Without this exact information to be furnished from the State, it will be readily perceived that it will be impossible to fix and settle the ratio of representation which the State shall be entitled to. No one class of the voters for these several classes of public officers is to be held as the standard and test for the number of persons in that State to be included in the count in the formation of the basis of representation. It appears to me that it introduces a rule which is so uncertain, so difficult of practical application, as not only greatly to increase the expenses of ascertaining the basis of representation by Congress in procuring the necessary information, but in many cases the returns must be so inaccurate and unreliable as to be next to worthless. As I said before, I do not wish to consume the time of the Senate, but it is at once to be perceived that if this rule shall be adopted, its operations will be felt in every election of a justice of the peace, in every municipal corporation of the U.S., where, by the municipal law of the place, a justice of the peace is to be elected; for a justice of the peace is ajudicial officer in precisely the same sense that the Chief Justice of the U.S. is such. We know very well that the States retain the power, which they have always possessed, of regulating the right of suffrage in the States. It is the theory of the Constitution itself.v That right has never been taken from them; no endeavor has ever been made to take it from them; and the theory of this whole amendment is, to leave the power of regulating the suffrage with the poop e or legislatures of the States, and not to assume to regulate it by any clause of the Constitution of the U.S. One class of qualifications may by a State be made necessary in the election of a Governor; another set in the election of the members of the Senate in that State; another in the election of members of the most numerous branch of the Legislature; another'set ofqualifications may be required by the State in the election of its several judicial officers; another in the election of electors of President and VEEP; and so on to the end of the chapter. It is a system which must necessarily vary as the laws and constitutions of the States vary; and a system which, therefore, must necessarily lead to great difficulty in its practical operations and results, and in many cases be almost entirely worthless for want of the necessary exact information which Congress should acquire and use in fixing the basis. A class of voters may be excluded from voting for a justice of the supreme court in their State who may, within their municipal limits, be allowed to vote forjustices of the eace. This amendment would exclude from the count all those voters, citizens of the State, who were not permitted to vote for a justice of the supreme court; and there is no telling how far this may extend, or where these disabilities may lead, and what the ultimate results may be. I far prefer some simple standard; and if it be in order I beg to submit to the Senate, as the result of the best consideration I have been able to bestow, a simple amendment to the amendment offered by the Senfrom Oregon. My amendment will refer to his printed amendment offered yesterday. lf it shall be ado ted the whole section will read thus; and I dbsire the attention oft the Senate for a moment to the text of the amendment if it shall be adopted, as I propose to amend it: Representatives shall be apportioned among the sew nil Statesaccordingtotheir rospeotivenum ers, counting the whole number of persons in eachState, excluding Indians not taxed. But whenever the right to vote at any election held under the constitution and laws of anyStatefor membersof the moat numerous branch of its Legislature is denied to any male inhabitant of such State, being 21 yearsof age and a citizen of the U.S.except for participation in rebellion or other crime. the basisof representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such mule citizens shall bearto the whole number ufmulo citizens21 yearsof ago in such State. This will leave the simple test to be the qualifications of a voter for members of the most numerous branch of the Legislature of the State; and it has no connection with any other State officer. Now, sir, let me say one word more. By the Constitution of the U.S. those persons in a State who are privileged to vote for members of the most numerous branch of its Legislature are the persons authorized to elect members of the Congress of the U.S. The rule is invariable throughout the States. Why not introduce into this amendment this ancient, simple, invariable, and easily working test, instead of the variable and shiftingqualifications embraced in the amendment of the honorable Senfrom Oregon? I propose also to strike out the words ‘for in any way abridged"7 in the 8th line of the printed amendment. I do not know, and I have not yet been able to find any gentleman who did know, what an abridgment of the right to vote really is. It strikes me it is a misapplication of terms. The right to vote is a unit. It is indivisible, as indivisible as a mathematical point, and as inca able of abridgment. If a man possesses tie right to vote, he possesses it in its entirety. If he does not possess it, he does not possess it. either conditionally, qualifiedly, or at all. He must possess it, wholly or not at all. I am not able to see how this right can be abridged. It seems to me this language is introducing confusion and uncertainty into our constitutional amendment. It is an invitation to raise questions of construction, and it will be followed, in my humble judgment, and as I fear, with an unending train of disputations in courts of justice and elsewhere, and there is no possi bility of foreseeing what in the end will be the decision of the Supreme Court as to the meaning of the language “ or in any way abridged.” To me it is incomprehensible. I felt it a duty due to myselfthus to express my objections to the amendment of the Senfrom Oregon.