Mr. KELLEY. Mr. Speaker, when the amendment under consideration was 1st introduced to the House, I avowed, in the course of a colloquy with the Gentfrom NewJersey, [Mr. Roosas] my irrevocable hostility to it, because I discovered in it the consequences which have been so glowingly depicted by the Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. nenmaaosuflthe Gentfrom Massachusetts, Mr and the E1401} gl Gentfrom Maine, [Mr. PIKE] had the onor yesterday to submit a substitute embracin a proviso guarding against the conclusion which I, in commOn With those Gentlemen, apprehend might be warranted by the original amendment, and I wish to say that, if it should be determined, by a majorit of those gentlemen with whom I have labore here for the last 4 years to maintain our Union, that the amendment should be passed with that proviso, it shall not fail for the want of my vote. In the course of my remarks on the 10th in stant, I took occasion to point out a allght error in constitution allaw into which the resident seemed to have fallen. I did it. as kindly and respectfully as I could, sayin that the great and pressing duties in which he find been engaged as military governor of Tennessee, and in the high office to which he had been so suddenly and unexpectedly called, had prevented him from studying the question historically. But my distinguished friendfrom Iowa, [Mr. Kassonfl who, I am sorry to see, is not now in his seat, seemed to think thatI had s oken “somewhat patronizingly" of the presient. Sir, I am in ca able of assuming to “patronize” so distin uished a functionary as the POTUS. I am as inca able of that as I am of flattering the official ountain of honor and political cornuco in of our country. It is not often said of me that I “ Crook the pregnant hinges of the knee, Where thrift may follow fawning.” and I entertain too much respect for any man who may have been called to fill so distinguished a place as that of the Presidency of the U.S. to attempt to patronize him. The Gentfrom Iowa took exception to m apprehension of the very explicit remarks o Mr. Madison in the Virginia convention that ratified the constitution of the U.S. He said that the clause to which those remarks referred did not and was not intended to give Congress the right to regulate suffrage in the States, even as to the election of members of congress and President. This was the gentleman s language: “It is evident. that by the word manner is meant something else; perhaps whether by ballot or viva0000, by generalticket or by separatedistricts, and all other tings that comeproperly underthe term man nor. I But it evidently was never intended by Mr. Madison or by the framersof the constitution, or by the peoplewhenthey adoptedit that theLegislatures and conventions of the several States might be derived of theipower to anywho would be the quali edelectors of the StateLegislatures and indirectly, the qualified electorsof membersof Congress.” Having interrupted him to invite his more particular attention to the language of Mr. Madison, I promised the gentleman that I would reduce further authority on the point, which Idid not happen to have by me at the time; and I trespass now for a brief moment upon the attention of the House that I may make good that promise, and show that James Madison himseli, on the 9th of August, 1787, on the floor of the Convention that framed the constitution of the U.S., carefully and elaborately excluded the conclusion announced by the Gentfrom Iowa, and vindicated the doctrine which I presented to the House and maintain. The extract which I propose to read is from Mr. Madisons report of the doings of that convention, and is found in the 3rd volume of the Madison Papers, published by authority of Congress in 1840. This volume, gentlemen will remember, contains Mr. Madisons minutes of the debates and action of the Convention. But before. proceeding to read it, let me remark that what is new article 4 of the constitution was article 6 in the draft of the constitution submitted to the Convention; and concerning. &c. that that body had not adopted “ Congress” as the title of the national Legislature, and therefore invariably spoke of it as the “national Legislature.” These suggestions will probably make the matter I propose to submit to the House more clear. It being, as I have said, on the 9th of Augfllt, I find on pages 1279 to 1282 as follows: “Article vi. section one. was then taken up. l "MrJhmsounnd Mr. Gouviznsncuhlonms moved to strike out “each Horiso. "and to insert the HoRep; the right of the legislntures to regulate the times and eplaces8, 10. i, n the election of Senators being involy in the right of appointinc them; which was disagreedto. “A division of the questionbeing called for, it Ill. taken on the 1st part down to but their provisions “The 1st part was uflced to, item. cow. “in “ML PINCKNEY and Mr. Burnsocr. mqvodtoatrlh out theremaining part, namely, buttheir provisions concerning them mayat any time be altered by the Legislature of the U.S. The States. they contended, could and must be reliedon in such cases.