Mr. WILLEY. Mr. President, the discussions which the bill now under consideration has excited, both in Congress and in the country, have embraced a wider range of thought and argument than was strictly in order. More has been said and written upon the propriety or impropriety of bestowingI the elective franchise upon the negro in teStates lately in rebellion than upon the ro position directly involved in the bill itsel. n the latter case there can be no doubt about the power of congress. Our authority to pass the bill will not, I suppose, he controverted. In the former case there can be as little doubt, in my judgment, that Congress has not the power by legislative enactment to confer the right of suffrage on any class of people, black or white, within the jurisdiction of any of the States. niHOW that y it is said that the Constitution provides that “the U.S shall guaranty to every State in this Union a RFG, ” and that no form of government can be republican which withhol s the right of suffrage from a class of persons simply on account of their color. But this very clause of the Constitution, it will be observed, does not clothe Congress positively with the power or the duty of regulatin the qualifications of electors in the States. the most liberal construction which can be placed upon it, favoring the idea advanced, is, that congress may withhold its recognition of a State, or refuse the admission of a State, until it shall be satisfied that the government of the State is republican in form. But it seems to me it is now too late to raise the question. The advocates of this construction of the Constitution have been very remiss, to say the least of it, if the power which they claim has really been conferred on Congress. They have allowed the infraction of what they regard as a fundamental principle of republican government by almost every State in the Union to remain unchallenged and unredressed until the iresent time. Sir, nearly every State in the nion at some period of its history, has excluded persons from the elective franchise in consequence of race and color; and that exclusion remainsin fullforcc now in a large majority of the States. And, sir, the question may well be raised whether an interpretation of this clause of the Constitution which would clothe Congress with authority to relate the right of suffrage in the States wool not itself be a destruction of republican government. suffrage is the fundamental principle of republican government. Therefore, i you deny the right of a State to regulate this franchise for itself, how can it be truly republican in fact? But without further remark in this behalf, I respectfully submit that it is only necessary, in order to refute this latitudinarian idea of congressional power, to quote another plain provision of e Constitution itself. It is as follows: “The HoRepshall be composed of memberschosenevery2nd year by the people of the several States; and the electorsin eachState shall have the qualifications requisite for electorsof the most numerous branchof the StateLegislature." It seems to me that this clause excludes all rational controversy respecting the power of Congress to regulate the qualifications of elect ors by statutory enactment. And, in myjudgment, the wisdom ofthus leaving with the States the right of regulating suffrage is as manifest. as the authority conferred upon them to do it is plain and undeniable. It avoids all conflict between the nation and the respective States as to the qualifications of the electors of State officers and Federal officers, and thus secures more harmonious relations between the States and the national Government. Besides, the States must necessarily be the better judges of the limits to which suffrage may be judiciously extended therein, having due regard to the public welfare and safety; for it is quite obvious flint it might.well be bestowed upon a class of voters in one State, when it might be imprudent and dangerous to give it to the same class in another State. For instance, the great State of NewYork may receive little detriment from the predominating proortion of vicious and dissolute population int c district of the “ 5 Points, ” but if the proportion which that population bears to that district existed allover the State it might well suggest much more stringent restrictions upon the qualifications of voters than the constitution of that State new contains. of the necessity of such limitations the States respectively must be better able to judge than the nation at lar e. How could We know what the welfare an safety of California or Oregon might require in this respect? But on this question, in regard both to power and to expo iency, hear the contem ioriineous expositions of the framers of the Constitution. Mr. Madison, in No. 52 of the Federalist, says: “The 1st view to be taken of this part of the government relates to the qualifications of the electors and the elected. "Those of the former are to be the same with those of the electorsof the most numerous branchof the StateLegislatures. The definition of the right of suffrage is veryjustly regarded as a fundamental article of republican government. It wasincumbenton the Convention, therefore. to establish and define this right in the Constitution. To have left it open for the occasionalregulation of the Congresswould have beenimproper. for the reasonjustmentioned. To havesubmittedit to the legislative discretion of the Stateswould have been imprmer for the same reason and for the additional reason that it would have renderedtoo dependenton State governments that branchof the Federal Governmentwhich ought to be dependent on the peoplealone. To havereduced the different qualifications in the different Statesto oneuniform rule would probably have been as dissatisfactory to someof the States as it would have beendifficult to the Convention. The provision made b the Convention appears.therefore.to bathe bestt at lay within their option. It must be satisfactory to everyState, becauseit is conformable to the standard already establishedor which may be established by the Stateitself. It will be safeto the U.S.because, being fixed by the State constitutions.it is not alterable by the State governments, and it cannot be fearedthat the people of the States will alter this part of their constitutionsin such a manner as to abridgetho right ssecuredto them by the federal Constitution.” Mr. Hamilton, in No. 60 of the Federalist, sa“ys: The qualificationsof the personswho may choose or be chosen.as has beenremarkeduponanotheroe casion.are definedand tired in the constitution and are unalterable by the Legislature." It is my opinion, therefore, fhat the advo catespf congressional intervention to regulate the right 0 suffrage in the States, whether loyal or disloyal, y mere legislative enactmept, 'have no warrant for the authority they claim in the Constitution, but are seeking to exercise a power expressly prohibited by the Constitution. If the discussion had been confined to the operation of this bill, these remarks would hardly be pertinent. Butthe question has been discussed in its bearing upon the whole country, and it is avowed that what we do upon this measure is designed to have a bearing on the general policy of the nation. But the power of conrose to pass this bill is, I supppse, undeniab e. Congress has complete jurisdiction over the DistCol; an here‘ it is only a question ofJusticc and expediency. If it had been left to my Judgment, Mr. President, I should 'have sai that whether this measure was in itself wise or unwise this was‘hardly a proper time to introduce it. We are in the midst of mighty events. The order of society all around us is disorganized. There is a painfulsense of uncertainty filling every hcai t an(l mind. New, vital, an most difficult Questions are thrust upon us, which must be ecided. Anything not essential in itself, or very material to the welfare of the nation, or a considerable part of the nation if it is cal culated to complicate our difficu ties, or in flame party passions or sectional animosities, had better be left, it appears to me, to a more TOPILIOUS hour. It is true that this bill is united to this Districtin its operation.nevertheless it has and is desigued to have a national significance. The moral influence of our action here is intended to reachevery State. But, wisely or unwisely, the question is before us and we must meet it. And, sir, in taking my position today I do it with the understanding that it may possibly terminate my connection with this body and with public affairs. But, sir, acting in obedience to the convictions of my judment, I shall leave the result, so far as it 5 al affect me personally, to take care ofitself. IfI am right the truth sooner or later will vindicate my course. IfI am wrong, I shall at least have the consolation of knowing that I erred from no selfish motive. I will not, I cannot now, whatever may be the consequences, shrink from what I trust I may be pardoned for saying, has been the sacred rule of my life a conscientious adherence to what soever I believe to be just and true. Therefore reiterating my belief that congress has no power to interfere with the rig it of suffrage in any State; that I shall oppose all congressiona legislation assuming to exercise any such power; and recalling the fact that the bill under consideration is confined in its legal operation to the DistCol alone, Isolicit the attention of the Senate to some further remarks on the principles and policy involved in it. In doing soI wish to treat the question fairly and so to deserve a candid and im artial hearing here and elsewhere. Mr. President, I do not concur in the epinion so boldly av0wed b some Senators that the proposition to exten the right of suffrage to the African race in this District is so plainly right as to be on iicstionable. I regard it as one of the most iflieult and important questions ever submitted to the consideration of Congress. It involves the future welfare of 2 races here and elsewhere, and perhaps the very existence of one of them on this continent. It is not, in my judgment, consistent with a wise and enlightened statesmanship to seek to evade its cmbarrassments by mere emphatic declarations that its propriety is in controvertible. There is no argument in simple as severations, however vchcinently made or dramatically expressed. This question of suffrage has been discussed with great ability and research during the past few weeks. History, philose by, law, and met aphysics have been laid under liberal contri butions to illustrate it. The debate has been adorned with eat clo ueuce and learning on both sides 0f the Chamber. Mr. President, I shall be unable to commend my views to the Senate by any of these attractive and fascinating adjuncts. My aim shall be to present the conclusions which are war ranted by plain, common sense. And, sir, I begin with the proposition, which I believe has not been seriously controvcrted, that suffrage is not a natural or absolute right If it were so the controversy would be at an end; for I think it would be hard to demonstrate that we would be justifiable in withholding from any member of society what he had a natural right to enjoy. But, sir, it seems to medhat the order and economy of divine Providence plainly indicate that citizenship must necessarily be subject to limitations. The universal law of self efcnsc, belonging to communities no less than to individuals, involves the principle of restricted suffrage. If we look abroad over the earth we cannot fail to see, from its physical structure and geographical divisions, that distinct communities and separate nationalities are inevitable. It is divided into continents and islands and zones and sections, separated by oceans and seas and mountain ran cs, indicating a most palpable providential can of distinct and independent communities. Then there are radical differences in systems of religion, forms of civilization, manners, customs, anguage, and race. Some are pagans, some are Christians. some are Jews, an some are savages. It would, therefore, be impossible, even if the physical barriers referred to were out of the way, to extend one safe, consistent, “and useful empire over the entire globe, embracing so many heterogeneous elements of society. Different nationalities do, therefore, seem to be absolutely necessary, and to be i according to the divine will; and therefore they must be warranted by natural and absolute right, and consequently include the power to ordain and enforce whatsoever regulations shall be deemed essential to preserve their peace and integrity and 8romote their hap piness and prosperity. n this principle, I imagine, our naturalization laws are based; and these laws imply that no person belonging to anyone of these communities has the right to incorporate himself into the body politic of any other community without its consent and without complying with such conditions as shall be prescribed for his admission. On this foundation, too, has been erected the whole superstructure of international law. Every nation or community, therefore, has the absolute right to regulate its own affairs and govern its own people. In doing so it may not, however, ri tfully exercise this power arbitrarily or in derogation of the)rinciples of justice and equity toward all or toward any of its people. Now sir, one fundamental and most obvious principle necessary to be observed in the organization of such community is homogeneity of condition, whether it relates to religion. to the form or degree of civilization, to distinctions of race, or to anything else; because upon this may depend its welfare, its peace, and, in deed, the perpetuity of its existence. And so when an independent nation has been 'organized, it would seem to be alogical sequence of the premises enunciated that that nation has thereafter a perfect right to say who shall or who shall not be introduced into its citizenship; and therefore no individual, class of individuals, or race, not originally compos in a part of it, has any natural or absolute rig it to be enfranchised as a part of it a inst its consent or on conditions other than those it may presciibe. Indeed, this is implied in the cherished maxim of our American institutions, that all just government is derived from the ‘consent of the governed; for this implies that Government is a compact between the parties to it, and to be just and complete“ it must include the consent of all the contracting parties. It follows from these considerations that whatever would seriously disturb the harmony of the political organism of the State or imperil its welfare and integrity may be properly excluded. And here, sir, I must be allowed to remark that there can be nothing more likely to disturb the peaceful relations of society than caste or distinction of races especially when those distinctions are as marke as those belonging to the Anglo Saxon and the African. Sir, I repeat it, that it is vain as it is unwise to attempt to underrate the peril of negro enfranchisement. Sir, we find impress ive admonitions on almost every page of history against the evils of incorporating different races, religions, and civilizations into the some national organization. f the Senfrom Massachusetts had brought the same learning and research to the examination of the relations which this thought bears to the actual history and condition of the nations of the earth which he did to the definition of what constitutes republican government a few days ago, what an instructive lesson he would have taught us! Sir, may we not find a solution of the problem of the long protracted anarchy and insurrectionary condition of Mexico in the heterogeneous character of its population? And if so, was not Louis Napoleon in cbted for his opportiinity of violatin the traditioual policy of the U.S. an humiliating us as a nation by the introduction of European imperialism on this continent to these same Mexican disorders? And what was our own late sad and sanguinary war buta rebellion instigated by causes growing out of the eXistence of a foreign race in this country? And how does England maintain her authority today over the castes and races in her eastern possessions? Not by law or by the consent of the eo)10, but by the sword. Mr. President, I do not suppose there is a i Senator here, not even the Senfrom Massachusetts [Mr. Suuxnsd who would be willing, as an original proposition, to consent to the introduction of the no ro race into this country in any considerable numbers to become citizens. And why? Because he would wish to avoid the dangers arising from the contra riety of races in the same body politic. philosophic mind, enlightened by all the history of the pas., would enable him to foresee bloody scenes 0 revolution like those which have just attested in our own age and land the sad consequences of introducing different races into the same community. But then, sir, the negro is here; here without any fault or will of Iiis own, and by no fault or will of ours. 4 millions of his race are here, and we cannot 1101 it. What are we to do? eyes upon the perils that surround us? Sir, I do not believe either in the policy or the propriety of discussing this great national question after the manner of an advocate at the bar or a partisan on the hustin s, seeking to make the most of the side of the case he espouses. The obligations of the Senator rise above this; and if we would comprehend our duty and discharge it intelligently, we must survey the question in all its bearings. And now, sir, having made these general observations, and having, as I believe, fairly stated the general principles oflaw and policy applicable to the proposition under consideration, so as to give to those who deny the right or expediency of negro enfrunchisement tafull benefit of all they can logically or lawfully claim in support of their position, I proceed in my examination of the bill before the Senate. only desire is to ascertain what is true initself, just to the negro, and safe for the country. Mr. President, it is useless now to discuss the propriety or improriety of the abolition of s avery in the U.S. The deed is done. It is an accomplished fact. It is irreversible; and becauseit'isirreversible itaffords a strong presumpton that it must be right. No Senator, I imagine, would assert that he would reiestablish slavery in this country ifhe could. No Senator will contend that the white race in this country is not in a better condition without slavery than with it. Whether gradual cmancipation would not have been the better mode, better for the master and better for the Slave, it is now too late to determine. It is well known that Mr. Lincoln would have preferred gradual cmanciation. In this preference I concurred with im. It would, in my opinion, have prevented many of the sore evils which are now afflicting so many of the colored race. But the pressure of events, the exigen cies of the war, and the madness of the slave‘ holders themselves, didv not permit an such beneficent delay. At all events the eed is done; and 4 million human beings, latel slaves, are now free, forever free. For myself, I rejoice that it is so. I voted for the constitutional amendment, and thus aided in the accomplishment of the result. To this extent I am individually responsible for the result. The nation, through the means provided in its organic law, has ratified and confirmed the‘ decree of universal emancipation. So the nation, too, is responsible for the rest result. Does our duty cease here? I thin not. The question still remains, what shall be done with wt e freedmen? I have always entertained the opinion that it would be better for the races to be separated, if it were practicable to separate them. But it is impracticable to do so at this time. Gradual emancipation might possibly have rendered deportation and colonization available. But this is impossible, even if it were desirable, under existing circumstances. We have not the means to do it. We cannot support the burden ofincreased public debt which any commensurate effort to o it would necessarily impose upon us. And if We had the pecuniary means, the moral and intellectual condition of the great mass of our colored population wholly disqualilies them for the duties and responsibilities involved in any separate colonial organization. They must undergo a century of His: Say there is no 1 difficulty in the situation of affairs and shut our My i moral, intellectual, and civil, if not political, tuition before they will be prepared for the high behests of self'government. What, then, is the nation's dutyto its freedmen; freed by our set, not their own? In relation to a certain class of its duties, I suppose there can be no difference of opinion among all enlightened, humane, and Christian statesmen. “5e owe to the freedman the guarantee of every civil right of man. He must be fully protected in the enjoyment of “ iife, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." He must have the same rights in these respects that you or I have; and the securities and guarantees surrounding them must be as am lc for him as they are for you or for me. To t iis extent he must be made equal before the law. Why should it not be so? This protection involves, on his part, obedience to the law; the same obedience that the white man renders. Enjoying the full benefit of this relation to civil government, he must also bear its burdens, the same burdens which the white man bears. He must pay taxes. Ho mustrender military service. e must work upon or repair the public highways. e must, in short, respond to all the obligations and duties which rest upon the white man. Upon what principle ot justice or equity, therefore, will it be said that he is not entitled to the same civil rights, privileges, and immunities as the white man? If he performs all the civil duties of the citizen, how can he be deprived of any of the civil rights of a citizen? Does the more color of his skin constitute any rational disability? Surely not in the mind of any Christian states man. But aside from all these considerations of obligation and duty, it is clear that the welfare of both races, and of the nation, would be promoted by cheerfully and faithfully extending all civil rights and guarantees of civil rights to the freedman. While he remains here it is for our interest, no less than for his, that he should be elevated in character and capacity as speedily and to as great an. extent as possible. But how can we rationally expect improvement in these respects, or in any respect, if, while he has the name of freedman, we with hold from him the privileges and immunities rightfully and logically belonging to that relation, and treat him, in fact, as if he were still a slave? Will he not sink under the helplessness and hopelessness of such a situation into a degradation deeper than that from which he has been wrested a burden and a curse to the community where he dwells? And do we not here find a complete answer to the allegation so constantly and vehemently reiterated in our ears that the free negro will not labor and uniformly leads an indolent, vicious, and disrepu table life? What motive had he in the slave States to do otherwise? But throw around him the protection and extend to him the privileges of the citizen, and he will be stimulated to industry, and will have some inducement to improve his condition. Let his manhood be recognized if you wish to develop it. In reference to these suggestions, however, I suppose there will not be much controversy. But what is the logical inference from these statements? Can it be true thataclass of men may be justly entitled to all the civil rights and privileges of the citizen, and still be wholly unworthy of all political rights? Is not the relation between civil and political rights inti mate if not indissoluble? How can they be logically separated? Does not civil obligation imply political right unless some motive of the paplic welfare and safety intervenes to justify the exclusion? The fundamental principle of our political institutions is, that all rightful government must rest on the consent of the governed. If the freedmen are to be subject to the laws, are they not, therefore, entitled in justice and equity to some authority in the appointment of those who are to make the laws? There is another fundamental principle of American liberty involved in the question. It was the cardinal complaint of our revolutionary fathers that they were taxed without 4 guy for keeping in representation. Upon this issue they went to war. upon this issue the revolutionary war was foug t. How can we consistently tax the freedmen and wholly exclude them from representation? Upon what principle, I ask, can this be done? And upon what arinciple of justice or American liberty, I furthermore ask, can freedman be compelled to ierform military service, and yet be excluded from havin any voice in the Government which sends him to the field? Is he to be intrusted with the bay onet and not with the ballot? Is he worthy to die for his country, and yet necessarily unworthy of the elective franchise? I am not unmindfnl of the clamor with which these prop positions are met. Do I propose, I shall be asked, to make the black soldier equal to the white soldier? The question is liar ly worthy of a statesman, and is therefore, in this place, hardly worthy of a reply. The eqhality of the 2 races as, soldiers is not at all involved in the issue I am discussing. But I do not mean to say that the colored soldier is equal to the white soldier. I do not believe that he is. Under the circumstances in which he is placed it is impossible that he should be. But if he is worthy of being a soldier at all is he not worthy of beinga citizen and a voter? Should we fear to give the ballot to him who is ready to give his life for his country? His country, sir! He whois morally and intellectually qualified to vote, and is denied the privilege, can hardly be said to have a country. He is VIP tually still a slave. Sir, we have seen the blood of the black man and the blood of the white man during the late terrible rebellion mingling undistinguishably together as a common libation to liberty on the altar of their country. Is not such a sacrifice sufficient to (propitiate the favor of a magnanimous race, an to merit the boon of political eufranchisement? For myself, sir, I should be ashamed to deny it wherever there is capacity to appreciate itand use it discreetly, and where I have the right to bestow it. Again, Mr. President, what is the legitimate effect on the status of the freedman of the constitutional amendment abolishing slavery? If he was not a citizen before that amendment took effect is he not now? According to the spirit of our institutions, if not according to the letter of our Constitution, it appears to me that he is. I can conceive of no intermediate state between slavery and citizenship among the natives of our soil and within our jurisdiction, unless there be an exclusion in express terms. Why were negroes born on our 3011heretofore ruled not to be citizens? Was it simply because they were ofiAfrican descent? I suppose not no more than it would become tent to exclude on account of German e scent or French descent. It was because the negro belonged to an enslaved race; it was on account of slavery; it was because theirancestors were brought to this country as chut tels and not as persons. But slavery being new abolished, an all men born on our soil being now made free by our organic law, the reason of the original exclusion no longer exists. With the extinction of slavery, its incidents and disabilities are necessarily extinguished. I know it is said that the sole effect of the constitutional amendment was to release him from the control of his master nothing more. But it seems to me that this is a narrow view of the subject. Freedom is a fact if it is anything a reality, not a mere shadow without substance. It was Kossuth, I believe, who said “liberty is liberty, as God is God.” But if the effect of constitutional emancipation, and constitutional prohibition ofslavery forever in this land be nothing more than is thus claimed for it, removin the control of the master but leaving the free man subject to all the other disabil ities of slavery, it is a mere mockery. That the question of color had nothing to do with the exclusion of persons of African descent from the status of American citizenship I think is made clear by Mr. Justice Curtis in his opinion in the Dre Scott case, which case constitutes the only authority, I believe, against 186& GIQBE. 3437.1 the cometency of negroes to be made citizens. the opinion I refer to 18as follows: " It hassometimesbeenurgedthateoloredpersons are shown not to be citizens of the U.S. by the fact that the naturalization laws apply only to white persons. But whether u. personhorn in the U.S. he or be not a citizen, cannot depend on laws which refer only to aliens, and do not affect the statueof personsborn in the U.S. The utmosteffectwhich can be attributed to them If; to show that Congress has not deemed it expedient generally to apply the rule to colored aliens. That they might do so, if thoughtfit is 0 car. The constitution has not exclude them. An sincethat.has conferred the power onCongresstonuturalile colored aliens, it certainly shows color is not a necessary qualification for citizenship under the Constitution of the U.S. It may be added that the gower to make colored persons citizens of the U.S., under the Constitution. has been actually exercisedin repeatedand important instances. (See Treaties with the Cheetaws.of Seternber27, 183d, article 14: with the Cherokees o fKitty23, 1836a, rtl ele 12; Treaty of Guadalupe Ilidalgo, February 2. 1848.article 8)" Here, then, is the point of the argument: that a man born on our soil, subject to military duty, subject to taxation, rendering obedience to all our laws, sustaining all the burdens of citizenship and discharging all its duties, and morally and intellectually qualified to vote in telligently and judiciously, cannot, justly and consistently with the principles and spirit of our republican institutions, be rightfully deprived of the elective franchise, simplyin consequence of the color ofhis skin or on account of his race. His being a black citizen cannot, if he have all the other qualifications of the white citizen who by law is entitled to vote, constitute any legal, rational, or righteous disability on his part to vote. The only justification for his exclusion which will bear the test of reason and of right must be found in considerations of the public peace, welfare, or " safety. If the enfranchisement of the negro will impair any of these, then you may exclude him from political authority; if not, how can you justly do it? If according to our Constitution and laws and the spirit of both, the native born black man is a citizen, how can you consistently withhold from him this franchise when he becomes equal, morally and intellectually, with the white voter; when he fulfills the same conditions you impose on the white voter? But the freedman is not the 0111party interested in this question. I COllSlter the political enfranchisement of such of the free men as shall become capable of a judicious and in telligent use of the right of suffrage as very materially connected with the welfare of the white man and of the nation. The great argument against emancipation was the danger to be apprehended from the want of homogeneity between the 2 races. Entertaining the views I have already expressed, I shall not attempt to deny that there was force in the argument. No candid student of history or of the philos ophy of human nature can be free from apprehension here. But let me repeat the fact that the deed is done. Slavery has been abolished. It is for the future we are required to provide. 4 million colored slaves have been emancipated forever emancipated. They are in our midst, and we cannot. hc|p it. There may be danger in giving to them the elective franchise; but is there not equal if not greater danger in withholding it. lrom them? They may not be homogeneous as voters; but will they be any less so as freedmen deprived of the right to vote? Is there not more danger in the want of homogeneousness in the endowment of political rights than in race or color? May the not claim the right to vote at some time? Is there no danger here? If we tax them, will they always peaceably submit to it without representation? Will they always yield nnresisting obedience to a Government imposed upon them without their consent? Will they have courage enough to bear arms in our defense, and to die in our defense, as they have done recently, and yet be incapable of exerting equal courage and determination in asserting their own rights, real or imaginary? Remember, they are or millions now more in numbers than our fathers were when they fought. the battles of the Revolution and establilshed our independence as a nation. There may be danger in the direction indicated; but is there not, I repeat, equal if not greater danger in the contrary dircc ion? Sir, I acknowl edge again that the question is surrounded with difficulties of the gravest character. I am seeking to discover the way by which we may avoid the most serious of them. Now, I know that it has been said that any attempt to elevate the negro to an equality with the white man at the polls will certainly provoke a conflict with the white voter; that the white man will submit to no such humiliation. Where is the humiliation? If I am not.in error, if our fathers were not in error in enunciating the truth that all just government rests on the consent of the governed, then the right of suffrage would seem to belong to the freedman who is competent to appreciate it, if we compel him to submit to our Constitution and laws. Can there be any humiliation in granting to any and to every human being what he is worthy of receiving or what he is entitled to receive? Nay, sir. The degradation, I think, would consist in withholding it from him. Besides, sir, Isupposethe white man would be no more humiliated by the equality of the negro at the ballot box than he would be by equality at the bar of a court of justice. And yet all are agreed, I believe. to yield to the negro equality of civil rights. And what do these include? All that enters into the security and enjoyment of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” If the negro is to be placed on the same platform with me in all these vital respects, an no degradation is suTTcred from it, cannot see either the degradation or an 'just cause of dangerin awarding to him, when he is qualified to receive it, the elective franchise. I am not blind, sir, to the prejudice, not to say passion, which exists in the public mind against the endowing of the negro with this great right; nor will I conceal the apprehensions which I feel myself lest serious difficulties and collisions may ensue. But my argument is, that there is less danger in bestowing the franchise than there is in reserving it. That is the point I make. There ought to be, there is in truth, no good reason why jus tice to the negro should provoke the hostility of the white man; but there would be reason in the revolt of the former if the latter should be guilty of injustice to him. It may be impossible sometimes to give practical effect to abstract principles of right and justice; but wherever it is possible to do so we ought not to fear evil consequences from doing it. What is right is always expedient if it is practicable. But, Mr. President, I may as well)notice this outery against negro equality a little more particularly. it is an unmeauing clamor, addressed to the assions and prejudices of the unthinking rather than the respectful consideration of the statesman. Will you, it is frequently asked, will you make the negro equal to the white man? Well, sir, what does that mean? If it were possible to make the negro fully e not to the white man equal in virtue, in knowledge; equal in all the attributes of our common human nature why should it not be done? And if he were really and truly made our equal, what would we have to complain of? It would take away the grounds of complaint. And if the elective franchise really had any such won drons power of transmutation and refinement of the negro, why should it not be bestowed upon him‘ If the power to vote would really make the negro equal to us, we ought to desire it to be given to him, for it is his inequality with us of which we complain. It would at once remove the apple of discord which has been so long disturbing the peace of the nation. But unfortunately it could have no such effect. Equality of civil and political rights could have but little influence on the social relations of the races. Why, sir, the negro has an equal right to breathe the same vital air which we do; and he does breathe it equall with us; and it is equally necessary to telife of us all. Does that prove the social equality of the races? tofore exercised it. The right of suffrage is the vital principle of republican institutions; but its equal en'oy month the white man and the black man oes not an cannot in anywise change the rsonal identity of either or affect their social relations. Social relations cannot be regulated by law. They are beyond its power. They are not the legitimate subject of legal regulation. Social equality is a matter of taste, of feeling, and of every man’s unfettered sense of propricty. The idea that because a negro can vote he is thereby placed on a social equality with the white man is supremely ridiculous. The idle, vicious, dissolute, dishonest white man votes; am I thereby placed under any obligation to acknowledge his social equality, or any other kind of personal equality? Is he, therefore, my equal? I may not and on ht not to associate with him at all, nor will t lelaw compel me to do it. Mr. President, such arguments are intended for other cars than ours. am willing thgiv shall go to those for whom they are intende, assured that the good sense of the peeple will readily distinguish between what is artfully addessed to their prejudices and passions and what shall justly challenge their enlightened judgment. Akin to this class of objection is another even more trivial. I allude to the intermar riage and miscegenation of the races. It admits of the same reply. These also are matters of taste and feeling. And I have this further remark to make about it, that if any white man should ever so far for et all the instincts of nature and all sense 0 proriety as to intermarry with a negro, I would say, Heaven help the negro! She would certainly have the harder part. of the bargain. But how could the elective franchise affect this matter? It imposes no obligation on the races to intermarry. It holds out no inducements to do it. There is no possible relation between the elective franchise and such intermarriage. It leaves the 2 races, in that respect, precisely where they now are. Moreover, it creates no barrier to the interposition of legislative prohibitions against such intermarriage. Every State, Isuppose, has statutory provisions inhibitin the marriage relation between persons within certain degrees ofkindred. The same policy might be observed in reference to these races, if the good of society should render it necessary. On the question of illegitimate misce genation I need only refer to the census. The southern mulatto furnishes a conclusive answer to the argument on miscegenation. There has been brutality in both races. But in proportion as we shall elevate the negro, and increase his self respect by extending to him the rights of man, these instincts and evidences of lechery and brutality will disappear. In my judgment, one of the most beneficial results of the abolition of slavery will be the decline of miscegenation. I come now to the examination of the particular provisions of the bill, and the amendments proposed, under consideration, and to the‘application thereto of the general principles regulatin and defining the right of suffrage which enunciated in the commencement of my remarks. I ask for the reading of my amendment.