Mr. KERR. I will rely to the position as sumed by the distinguis ied Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. BINGHAM] that in my judgment there is not in this proposition agrant of power to the States to regulate suffrage within their own limits. I assume that that power exists in the States and the people now; that. it always has existed there; that it exists and inheres in the people of the States, and was never surrendered by them to Congress, nor to any other authority. According to my construction of our system of government, I do not think that congress is the grantin power in this country. I take it that political power finds its foundation and its source in the people of the States and not in Congress. Power comes from below, from the people; it does not go from here to the people. how, in the case I have supposed, if the people of Ohio, either by their indamental w, or by their statute law, do not. suffer on of this emancipated race to exerciset cright of elective franchise within that St ate, what, then, is the result? The entire negro population of Ohio, or of any other State that should make the like regulations of the elective franchise, is denied representation in congress. The honorable Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. 1GHAM] tells us that this is imposed by way of penalty upon the people of the State fpr refusing to adept this modern idea of absolute and Universal suffrage. In other words, it is a new kind of argument to compel them to grant negro suffrage. I inquire now, what right has Congress to ask States to impose upon themselves this kind of penalty, and who is injured by the penalty? Is it the white man or the negro? he gentleman professes to be laboring mm to benefit and ameliorate the condition of the negro in this country; yeti submit that the effect. of this amendment, if adopted, will be to make worse the condition of the new, and turn him over to the complete control of the State where he may happen to live. It denies to him any representation here, an relief at the hands of Congress. Is the negro benefited then? Is the country at large benefited? Are the States benefited? I can see but one single clear result that will follow from this amendment if it is adopted by the people of this country, and that is an effect that will inure not to the advantage of the nation, nor of any State in the Union, nor of any class or race of men in any State. But it. will inure solely to the benefit and advantage of the Republican party. In my judgment the only persons who will in by this provision willbe the now dominan partyin this country. They will thereby increase their power; they will thereby degrade the South; they will reduce her representation here, and relatively increase their own representation; they will confirm the sectional supremacy of the North in the legislation and administration of the Government. They may thus compel. the South to become suppliants at their feet for justice, and it. may be or mercy. Now, taking this view of the effect of this provision, I cannot indorse it. If gentlemen have introduced this proposed amendment to the constitution in the interest ofequality, why do they not frame it. so that it Will produce genuine equality? Why do they not make it in its terms something that will tend to secure equalit in the country in fact as well as in the; ory? Vill it, if adopted, equalize representstion in Congress? In the Senate of the U.S., the very 1st principles of representativeequality are and will continue to e violated. hat is the fact. today? The little State of Nevada, with one voter to about every 40 in the State of NewYork, has the same representative power and influence in the Senate of the U.S. as the great State of NewYork. Is that equality? Is that right? It is not, if the theories for which gentlemen have contended here be correct. The effect of the change will be to increase the inequality, unless the South extend equal suffrage to all their negroes in the election of Congressmen. This they will not do, in my judgment. They will take counselof their prejudices and of their better knowledge of the true character of the negro and his fitness or unfitness for the exercise of suffrage. The greatest social and political problem of this age cannot be solved by the app ication of this kind offorce or penalties. But again, it was suggested by the honorable Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. Scuss ex] that this provision ought to have gone further and abolished the present system of direct taxes, and that that should have been done in the interest of this some sort of love for equality in the adjustment of the operations of our Government. hy not doit? Vhy retain in the constitution this provision which, upon its very face, is a most palpable and direct violation o every principle of equngity, both in the representation ere and in the distribution of the burdens of the Government upon the people of the several States? The abolition of slavery has made this change practicable by removing the chief foundation upon which it rested. Representation and direct taxes are now required to be distributed among the different States upon what is called the rule of apportionment. What does that mean? It means that taxes on land shall be imposed by the Federal Government, not according to the value of the thing taxed, but accordin to the number of people in the State. What do we mean by direct taxes? We mean capitation taxes and taxes Upon land. Now, why is it right to impose upon a poor State, whose population may be great, a tax equal to that imposed upon a wealthy State whose population is relative much less? Massachusetts, for instance, with her wealthy people and her land worth $100 or $200 or 300 peracre, is constantly transporting her surplus poplulation, but augmenting her relative wealth. ow, I ask, wh not abolish this singularly arbitrary mode of, distributing the burdens of taxation 1 Why not abolish this provision alto gether, and provide that direct taxes shall be assessed upon the principle of actual value, and let the acre in Kentucky pay taxes in proportion to its value as compare with the value of an acre owned in RhdIsland or Massachusetts I That would be equality. But as it is, the burdens of this Government rest most heavily upon the poorest States; most heavily upon the agricultural States, upon the land of the country, surely because they are not apportioned according to the actual value of the and, the actual wealth of the people, but according to the accidental numbers of the peeple of the several States. Governments are no rmed and maintained alone for the protection of persons, but also of property and persons and property should contribute to pay the burdens of the country mainly upon the basis of the actual value of the property owned. Is it equality to impose a capitation tax of 5 dollars or head on the poor negroes of the South, and ponly the same on the wealthy citizens of our richest communities? Yet the present constitution requires substantially such disparity, and this amendment proposes to continue that state of things. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do think that while we should all approve. this general principle of equality when it is properly a plied, on when it is attempted to be extended in a spirit of fairness, a spirit of nationality, a spirit of equal justice toal men I insist that here there is an attempt to extend it in but one direction, and that whrich will ultimate in increasing the political power and the sectional supremacy of a party and a geographical portion of this country in the management o Federal affairs. I am therefore opposed to this amendment, and I shall always oppose all such amendments. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have treated somewhat at length the question of the right of Congress to legislate upon or control the subject of suffrage in the several States. I have also referred very brieflytoo briefly to do justice to my own convictions or those of gentlemen on this side I of the Houseto the other and the main question now before us for consideration. I desire, however, to say, in this connection, that, in the discharge of my duties here, I have no de sire to raise or carry on or countenance in any I manner whatever any war of injustice upon any class of my countrymen. I look upon this Government, its laws, its constitution, and its flag as designed for the protection and benefit of all the people of the country alike; and I care not wile er the be black or white. I do not imagine that this government was instituted for me and my children alone, but for every hpman being who may find here an abiding see. p I hold that every human being is entitled to justice at the hands of the government, and I want to give justice to them. I want to give it to the black man as well as to the whi man. I would protect the negro in all his civil rights as fully and amply as the white man, but I would leave all political privileges to be enjoyed as they now are; let us bring peace to the whole country with complete restoration of the component members to their appropriate places in the Union in the spirit of nationality and liberality; and afterward when these matters are adjusted and settled, let us come to the consideration of these questions connected with proposed changes in our fundamental law or arm of our government.