Mr. MCDOUGALL. Mr. President, it was my pride to have served in the public councils with Gerritt Smith, whose name has beenmentioned on both sides of this House, and ofwhom I can speak particularly. He was a man known for his truth and for his love of human liberty. He was Wise enough to have learned a lesson tau ht by the ablest man I think our own conn. try as produced, that you have to climb up from the conerete him the abstract and he always said that while he advocat certain abstract propositions he did not expect to see them reaized in a day. He knew he was in advance of his age; he was willing to be so; he sought no Office. That was his position, as he stated it to me and as it has been developed in his public life. So much for him whom I respect and of whom I desire to speak respect fully. for he is a noble man. Indulge me in another word. Since the Master of the universe said, "Let there be light, and there was light;” since He cast the s heres into action, from the earliest times, there hme been rulers, He being the Great Ruler, and where there are rulers there must be subjects. The hi liest organizations of the world have had the rulling of mankind subhind. The Senfrom Massachusetts talks about universal peace. What is universal peace? Universdl stagnation; no life; adeadsea where no life is. I will not make a speech now, but I say that universal peace is universal death, because it is motion, life, antagonism, that carries on the world of life. I object to the amendment of the Senfrom Missouri; and now I wish to say a word simply on the amendment of the Senfrom Wisconsin. The Constitution as it stands, in assessing direct taxes, would charge Iowa with as much as itwould charge Massachusetts, although Massachusetts has 20 times the wealth of Iowa. This is an unjust rule. When I once inhabited the West, on this side of the Missis sippi, and had occasion to look to these things, I found that Illinois might have been charged as much as Massachusetts with less than 20 times its wealth. Taxation should properly be assessed on the people according to their means to pay taxes. The amendment by the Senfrom Wisconsin meets my a rebation for that reason. Iain also in favoro dire “ use of the termi electors” which he introduced into his amendment. The Senfrom Ohio [Mr. Susanna] excepts to that, and says we should use the phrase “citizens.” If we do so the question of determinin who are citizens will have to be discussed in the courts. Electors are commissioned by their States. It is a plain word and can be understood. We do not want constitutional arguments in the SCOTUS and disputes throughout the country to settle its meaning.I believe that amendment is carefully drawn and is exactly right. In ree to the proposition that the men who are e ectors shall be the persons represented in the Federal Government. I would like to extend the provision and have them represented both in the House and in the senate; but the trouble is, we cannot do it in the Senate. If, however, Maine and Massachusetts undertake to be too absolute, we may provide an equivalent in some other way.