Mr. SUMNER. Mr. President, I hesitate to intrude again into this debate, which now, after the interjection of another debate on anotherquestion, is again renewed. I do it with uneigned reluctance, and I hope not to trespass too much on your atience. The question he ore us, even in its simplest form, is of incalculable importance; but it has an added interest, inasmuch as it opens the whole vast subject of reconstruction. Into this field I shall not be tempted at this time, except to express a short opinion on the general principles we should seek to establis. Treason must be made odious, and to this end power must be secured to loyal fellow citizens. In doing this, 2 indispensable conditions cannot be forgotten: 1st, all who have been untrue to the Republic must for a certain time, constituting the transition period, be excluded from the partnership of government; and 2ndly all who have been true to the reublic must be admitted into the partnership O government, accordin to the sovereign rule of the Constitution, which knows no distinction of color. Followin these 2 simple commandments, there willqie safety and peace, together with power and renown. Neglecting these 2 simple commandments, there must be peril and distraction, together with imbecility and dishonor. In the one way reconstruction will be easy; in the other way it will in any just sense be impossible. It may seem for the moment to succeed; but it must fail in the end. This is all I have to say at present on reconstruction, and I turn at once to the precise question before us. ll Pardon me, sir, if I remind you here on the threshold that there are 2 modes of debate. One is to attack the previous speaker withpersonality of criticism or of manner. The other is to speak plainly on the question, and to deal direct y according to your convictions with the principlesiuvolved. Sometimesthese 2 modes are allowed to intermingle. If ever there was an occasion when the 1st should be carefully avoided, when the question alone should be handled, and not the previous speaker, when the attention should be directed exclusively to the principles involved, and not to any subordinate pointof mere form, it is now, when we are asked to insert a new provision in the Constitution, fixin the basis O political power at the expense of fe low citizens counted by millions. In this spirit I shall try to say what I have to say. To my mind, the occasion is too solemn forpersonal controversy, and I shall not be drawn into it. CHARACTERor rnis museums. The proposition now before you is the most important ever brought into Congress, unless, perhaps, we may except the amendment abolishing slavery, and to my mind it is the most utterly reprehensible and nnpardonable. The same sentiment which led us to hail the abolition of slavery with gratitude as the triumph of justice, should make us reject with indignation a device to crystallize into organic law the disfranchisement of a race. It is with infinite regret thatI differ from valued friends about me, but I cannot do otherwise. I beepeak in advance their candor, and most cheerfully concede to all from whom I differ the same indul genes which I claim for myself. In exposing such an attempt, I must speak frankly, as on other occasions, in exposing the Crime against Kansas or the infamy of that enactment which turned the whole North into a hunting ground, where man was the game. The attempt nowis on alarger scale and is more essentially adthan the Crime against Kansas or the Fugitive Slave Bill. such a measure, so obnoxious to every argument of reason, justice, and feeling, so perilous to the national peace and so injurious to the good name of the republic, must be encountered as we encounter a public enem. There is no language which can adequate y depict its character. Thinking of it, I am reminded of those words of Chathnm, where he held u to undying judgment:1 measure of the Britis Ministry, which I think had already received the sanction of the House of commons, as the present attempt has already received the sanction of the HoRep. Chatham did not hesitate, nor did he tame his words, but exclaimed: “I am astonished shocked, to hear such principles confessed;to hear the mavowed in thlffHOILSOor in this count, principles equally unconstitutional. in human an unchristian. I call upon you to stamp upon them an indelible stigma of the public abhorrenee." Then, rising to still higher flight, he exclaimed: “ My lords. I am old and weak and at present iin able to say more; but my feelings and indignation were too strong to have said less. I slept could not have this night in my bed, nor reposed my head on my pillow, without giving this vent to my eternal abliorrenee of such preposterous and enormousprin OIP “ But what was the measure which thus aroused the veteran orator compared with that which is now before us? It was only a transient act of wrong, small in its proportions, which he denounced. I am to denouncenn act of wrong permanent in its influence, colossal in its proortions, o crating in an extensive region. affecting millions of citizens, positively endan gering the peace of the country, and covering its name With dishonor. such is the character of the present attempt. I exhibit it as I see it. Others may not see it so. Of course, its supporters cannot see it so. The British Minis try did not see the measure which Chathain denounced as he saw it and as history now sees it. Of course Senators would not support the present proposition if the thought it disgrace ul; nor would the Britis Ministr have supported that earlier proposition had t cy thought it disgraceful. Unhappily, they did not think so; but I trust you will be warned by their example. With the eloquence of Chatham, another person from his place in the House of Lords held up to reprobation that up.rentice system, which under the sanction O both Houses of Parliament, followed emancipation in the British West Indies. I refer to Brougham. He did not hesitate to exclaim: “ Prodigious, por tentous injustice!” and then continuing, he exclaimed a sin: “The ross, the foul, the outrageous, the iner ible injustice of which we are daily and hourly guilty toward the whole of the bill fated African race!” But how small was the injustice which aroused his reprobation compared with that which you are now asked to perpetuate in constitutional law. The wron which he arraigned was against 800,000 persons in distant islan s, to whom the people of GreatBritain were bound by no ties of gratitude, and who were to them only fellow men. The wrong which I now arraign is against 4 million persons, constituting a considerable portion of the “pee le” of the U.S. towhom we are bonn by ties of gratitude, and who are to us fellow citizens. From the moment I heard this proposition 1st read at the desk I have not been a Is to think of it without pain. The reflection that it might find a place in the Constitution, or even that it might be sanctioned by Congress, is intolerable and this becomes more so when I call to mind the circumstances by which we are surrounded and the exigency of the hour. Lord Bacon tells us that the highest function which men can be called to perform on earth is that of founders of States, or, as he expresses it, conditores imperii. such is the duty now before us. We are to help in this great work by a fundamental provision which shall fix the basis of our political system for an indefinite future. There are none among the great law givers of history who have had a sublimer task. But this duty is enhanced when we consider that it is the consequence and sequel of an unaralleled war. At a moment of peace such a duty would be commandin; but it is now reenforcedbyexceptionalconsiderationsarising from the exceptional condition of affairs. For 4 years Rebellion, in the largest proportions known to authentic history, raged among us, threatening to rend this Republic in twain. Millions of treasure were sacrificed. Lives more pecious than any treasure were heaped in hecatombs. Families were filled with mourning. In the terrible struggle, while the count was bleeding at every pore and the scales of battle hung doubtful, assistance came from an unexpected quarter. lntermixed with the false men who warred on the Republic were more than 3 million slaves, shut out from rights of all kinds, and comclled to do the bidding of masters. These s aves became our benefactors. They were kind to our captive soldiers, sheltering them, feeding them, supplying their wants, and guiding them to safety. bus in the very heart of the Rebellion there was a filial throb for the Republic. At last arms were put into the hands of these benefactors, and 200,000 brave allies representatives of an nnmustered host, lea c forward in defense of the national cause. The republic was saved. The Rebellion was at an en. Meanwhile the good President who at that time guided our affairs put forth his immortal Proclamation, declarin that these slaves “are and henceforward aha be free, ” and not stopping with this deci “ on, he receeded to announce, that the xecutive government of the U.S., including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons.” Thus was the Republic solemnly pledged to these benefactors: 1st, by the ties of ratitnde that should be endurin, and sec on ly, by an open promise in the ace of the civilized world and this pledge was taken up and adopted by the people of the U.S., when, by constitutiona amendment, they exgletiSSly empowered congress to maintain this edom by appropriate legislation and now, sir, called as we are to readjust the foundations of political power, which are naturally changed by the disappearance of slavery; and called also to perform sacred promises to benefactors, in harmony with sacred promises of our fathers, while at the same time we save the name of the Republic from dishonor and see that the national peace is not imperiled, Congress is about to liquidate all these inviolable obligations by a new compro mise of Human Rights, and, so far as it can, to place this compromise in the text of the constitution; thus establishing a false foundation 3f political power, violating the national faith, s onoring the name of re, nblic, and imperiling the national peace. thers have dwelt on the inadequacy of this proposition, even for its avowed purposes. Conceived in a desire to do indirect y what ought to be done directly, and thus “by indirections find direction out, ” it must naturally share the conditions of such a device. Falstaff tells us that “wit may be made a ackanapes when tis upon an ill employ;” at what ill employ ever equaled that of this attempt? Looking at this compromise in its most General aspect, it reminds me, if you will pardon the illustration, of that leg of mutton, served for dinner on the road from London to Oxford, which Dr. Johnson, with characteristic energy, described “as bad as bad could be, ill fed, ill killed, ill kept, and ill dressed.” So this comromise I adopt the saying of an eminent riend, who insists that it cannot be called an “amendment, ” but rather a “detriment” to the Constitution is as bad as bad can be; and even for its avowed purpose it is uncertain, loose, cracked, and rickety. Regardin it as a proposition from congress to meet the unparalleled exigencies of the present hour, it is no better than the “ muscipular abortion” sent into the world by the “ arturient mountain.” Butitis onlywhen weloo at the chance of good from it that this proposition is “ muscipular." Regarding it in every other aspectit isinfinite, inasmuch as it makes the Constitution a well spring of insu portable thralldom, and once more lifts the s uices of blood destined to run until it comes to the horses bridle. Adopt it, and youwill put millions offellow citizens under the ban of excommunication; you will hand them over to a new anathema maranatha; you will declare that they have no political rights “which white men are bound to respect, ” thus repeatin in a new form that abomination which has black sued the name of Taney. Adopt it, and you will stimulate anew the war of race upon race. Slavery itself was a war of race upon race, and this is only a new form of this terrible war. The proposition is as hardy as it is gigantic; for it takes no account of the moral sense of mankind, which is the same as ifin rearing a monument we took no account of the law of gravitation. it is the paragon and master piece ofingratitude, showing more than any other act of history what is so often charged and we so fondly deny, that republics are ungrateful. The freedmen ask for bread, and you send them a stone. With pitcous voice they ask for protection. You thrust them back unprotected into the cruel den of their former masters. such an attempt, thus had as bad can be; thus abortive for all good; thus peril ous; thus pregnant with a war of race upon race; thus shocking to the moral sense, and thus treacherous to those whom we are bound to protect, cannot be otherwise than shameful. Adopt it, and on will cover the country with dishonor. A opt it, and you will fix a stigma upon the very name of Republic. As to the imagination, there are mountains of light, so are there mountains of darkness; and this is one of them. It is the very Koh i noor of blackness. OBJECTIONS TO THIS COHPROHSE. I shall not content myself by describing this proposition. This is not enough, where such an attempt is made. You have seen it in its general character only. You shall see it now in its guilty parts, each one of which is sufficient to amuse the conscience against it. 1. Of course you cannot fail to be struck by its language. Herewords become thin s. In express terms there is an admission of teidea O Ineg lqality of Rightsfoundedon raceor color.That this uiirepnblican idea should be allowed to find a place in the text of the Constitution Will excitecspecial wonder when it is considered how conscientiously our fathers excluded from that tex t the kindred idea of property in man. The saying of Mr. Madison cannot be too often repeated: " He thought it wrqnato admit in the Constitution the idea of property in man.” But is it less wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea of Inequality of Rights founded on race orcolor? Surely the authors of this proposition have acted very inconsiderately and with little regard to the spirit of the fathers. Imagine itintroduced into the Convention which framed the Constitution. It would have been scorned as a dehleniciit not to be tolerated. It would have been scouted from that text which, with pious care, was to be guarded against deg radation and now mark the change. After the lapse of generations, when our obhgations have increase With increasing light at an epoch of history when mankind are more than ever before sensitive to the claims of human rightsand when among ourselves there is more than ever before a desire and a duty to fulfill all the promises of the DeclarIndep, we are invited to makethe Constitution slap the Declaration ofIndependence in the face; to make itinsult the conscience of mankind, and to make it disregard all the obligations pressing upon us. But this is a mild way of stating the character of this attempt as it appears in the words. Its essential uncleanness is not disclosed; and this you must understand. Adopt this prosition, and you will be little better than the only Harpies who defiled the feast that was spread. The Constitution is the feast spread for our country, and you are now hurrying to drop into its text a political obscenity, and to spread on its page a disgusting ordure, "Defiling all you find and parting leave a loathsomestenchbehind." If I use plain language it is because the occasion requires it. Only in this way can this enor mity be adequately exposed. Only in this way can you be made to see it in its true character. Only in this way can you he moved to shrink from it with proper repugnance. It is in this spirit that the reigions ress of the country is beginning to speak.The Boston Recor er, which is the most veNerable of all the religious papers of NewEngland, and perhaps of the whole country, which for more than half a cen tury has been a weekly teacher at uncounted firesides, thus solemnly appeals to the conscience of patriots and of statesmen: “The proposed amendmentto the Constitution of. the U.S., whicllpassed the HoRep last week by a vote of 120 to 46. will if it s ionld becomethe fundamental law of the Inn, m flicl uponourfree inaliluliona greater infamy thanany thing containedin our writtenConshrulion. There are things there which were sufficiently disgraceful in their intent and purpose. That theslave trndoshould not be Ylrohibited before 1808;that 3/5ths of the slaves should be rercsented in Congressby the votes of their owners: that fugitive slaves should be retnrnod to their owners: these werescandalous 1m visions to which our noble fathers submitted only becausewithout them we could have no common national existence. But they couchedtheseoffensive propositionsin termsthat. on the cessationol slavery would have no objectionable meaning. This eve. they anticipated much earlier than it has actn lly occurred and now that it is a fact. no one whes the clauses of the Constitution to which we have alluded to bestricken out. “But now it is proposed toingrafl. upon this revered instrument a inciple that aSme maydeorce that all menare notghrn equal, and maydisfrnnchise a majority of her citizens and their sons and their sonssons foreverl Good jurists have declared that the Constitution as it now standswould forbid any such State action, and that all constitutions and laws disfranchising citizens because of their arentago, color, race or descentare null and yoid. c are not awareof any attempttorefutethisvrw With a shadow of“success and now it cannot be that we shall give up our vantage ground and stain the triumph bought with so much preciousblood with a concunoninlnch mightbe turnedto so(maca use! “let every patriot. to whom the good INHPQOI America is dear. bestir himself. Let evpry Cbmlmn who believesthat God is no respecterotMEWS; 1" every father who would not leavp lo hIs 9hlilll8tlil a legacyof national discord and s birth nshtm In“ "11 yet to bleed in Helot conspiracies: let everystates man who believes that even justice is the only sure foundation of national tranquillity arouse himself.” I have heard somewhere a strange apology for these words of defilement. It is said that they are “punitive” in character, and that the idea of Inequality of Rights is to be admitted into the Constitution for punishment and not for sanction. As well say that the term “3/5ths of all other persons" in the constitution was “ unitive” in character. Itwas no such thing. t was a Compromise; and such is the precise character of the present proposition, which, by its very wor s, is a plain license to a disgusting tyranny in consideration that the t rants pay in political power. The primary e ement in the case, which stands out in “ darkness visible, ” is the license; the 2ndary element is the pay. Here is nothing less than a might House of Ill Fame, which it is proposed to icense constitutionally for a consideration. Even if political power is cur tailed, it is only as a consideration for the license. It is a new sale of Indulgences on a larger scale than that of Tctzel. The latter came from Rome into Germany dispensing indulgence s for adultery, robbery, theft; but the outrage aroused Martin Luther, and the Reformation be an. As well say that since paly was required, therefore the indulgence s o Tetzel were “ punitive" as that the present proposition is Punitive.” Thus far I have spoken of this proposition only as it appears in its words, without analyzing it in detail. On its face it is shameful. In its elementary parts and consequences, it is, if possible, more shameful still. 2. One of its elementary parts and consequences is that it sanctions the acknowledged tyranny of taxation without representation. A whole race, constituting a considerable art of the people of the U.S., and embraced under the words of the preamble to the Constitution, “ We the people, ” are left without Representation in the Government, but neverthe less held within the grasp of taxation of all kinds, direct and indirect, tariff and excise, State and national. Sir, this is t ranny or else our fathers were wrong when they protested against a kindred injustice. This pnuciple is fundamental. You cannot violate it Without again dislionoring the fathers. To the application of this principle there have been 2 replies: 1st, that in its nature it was a claim of representation for communities only, and not for individuals; and 2ndl, that in its nature it embraces women as wel as men and from these 2 considerations it has been argued thatit cannot beinvoked for the protection ofour 4 millions “guilty of as in not colored like our own." Even if it had been originally a claim for communities only, and not for individuals, it is difficult to see howit can be rejected as a rule in determining the rights of a mass of fellow citizens counted by millions. Our fathers when they cried out that taxation without representation is tyranny were not more than 2 millions and a half. Our fellow citizens who now echo the same O throughout the whole country are more than 4 millions, possessing the weight of numbers if not of organization. But it is a mistake to suppose that the original claim was for communities only and notfor individuals. This is a question of history, to be considered with the gravity of histor, and as such I ask yourattention to it. Alrea y in opening this debate I carried you to that Provincial Court in Massachusetts where in assailing writs of assistance, James Otis 1st launched the thunderbolt, “Taxation without representation is Tyranny.” You will remem her how careful he was to insist that without representation there could be no taxation of any kind, direct or indirect on land or on trade, and that the representation must be substantial, real and not merely imaginary, or, as it was expressed at that time, “virtual.” It was in develoing this principle that he announced the Equal Itights of all without distinction of color. On this ground he stood when he uttered those memorable words which the whole country adopted at once with patriotic frenzy, and which I insist you shall not deny in our organic law. Would ou know more precisely the meaning bf Otis? at him be his own interpreter. A sin and again he asserts the Equality of men. his was his fundamental principle, which on an important occasion he thus expressed: “The 1st and simple principle is El quality and the Power of the Whole.” (Otis, Itights of Colo nies, p. 14.) Nor did he allow this to be limited in its up lication by any distinction of color. John A ams, who was present when the orator 1st raised his great cry, says, “Nor were the poor negroes for otten. Not a Quaker in Phil adelphia, or Mr. Jefferson, of Virginia, ever as serted the rights of negroes in stronger terms.” (John Adamss llorks, vol. 10, p. 315.) Shortly afterward Otis, in another form, assailed directly the distinction of color, saying, “Will short curled hair, like wool, instead of Chris tian hair, as it is called by those whose heart is as hard as the nether millstone, help the argument?" (Otis, Rights of Colonies. 29.) such, then, were his premises, the equal Rights of all without distinction of color. from these his conclusion was easy. Here it is in his own words: "The very act oftaxing exercised over those who are not represented appears to me to be depriving them of oneof the ir most essential rights asfreeinen, and ifcmilinumf, seemstobe, in vJecI an entiredis/ran chinemenulfcverglcivil right. For what onecivil right is worth a rush after a mansproperty is subjectto be taken from him at plensure without is consent? If a man is not his own manner, in personor by deputy his liberty is gone or he is entirely at the mercy of others, " Olis, Rights of the Lbluiiiu, p. 53. Stronger words for universal suffrage could not be employed. His argument is that if men are taxed without bein represented they are deprived of essential rights; and the continuance of this deprivation des oils them of every civil right, thus making the atter depend upon the right of suffrage, which by a neologism of our day is known as apolitical right instead of a civil right. Then, to give point to this argument, the patriot insists that in determining taxation, every man must be his own assessor, in person orby deputy, ” without which his liberty is entirely at the mercy of others. Here a ain, in a different form, is the original thun er 1t, “Taxation without representation is Tyranny, ” and the claim is made not merely for communities, but for “every man.” such a principle naturally encountered opposition at that time, even as it does now in this Chamber; but Otis was ready at all points. To the argument that Manchester, Birming ham, and Sheffield, like America, returned no members to Parliament, he flashed forth in reply: “If they are not represented they ought to be. Every mano/a soundmind shouldhavehis vote." and then, again, taking up the reply, he exclaimed: “ Lord Cokedeclurosthat it is againstMagnaChnrta, and against the franchisesof the land, for free men to be taxed but I) their own consent.” Banerq/ts History of U.S., vol. 5, p. 290. Thus does he interpret again the flaming words, “Taxation without representation is Tyranny.” But while thus positive in his demand, there is reason to believe that Otis so far yielded to a prevailing sentiment, and especially to the opinions.o.Harrington, whose Occana was much read at that time, as sometimes to recognize property in determining the basis of political power. On one occasion he said that Government could not be “rightfully founded on property alone, ” thus seeming to intimate that property might enter into the foundation, although, as he erisively remarks, “ the os sessor of it may not have much more with than a mole or mus uash.” (Otis, Rights of colonies, p. 10.) but it was doubtless obvious to his clear intelligence that a claim of power founded on property was very different mm a claim of power founded on color. Property may be acquired; but color, from its nature, is an insurmountable condition. The original constitution of Massachusetts recognizes property as an element of political power; at it rejects all discrimination founded on color. If, therefore, under the maxim of Otis, there may be a discrimination founded on property, most clearly, accordingto reason and early practice, there can be no discrimination founded on color, so that at the present hour his maxim is of vital force as a claim, not merely for the community, but for the individuaL Let the country now, as aforetime, take it up and repeat it until it becomes the watchword of patriotism. But Otis was not the only interpreter of this maxim of Liberty. The Legislature of Massachusetts on repeated occasions made the same claim. On one occasion, in solemn resolutions drawn by Samuel Adams and adopted unanimously, it spoke as follows: “That by the law of nature no man has a right to impose laws more than to levy taxes upon another; that the free man pays no tax, as the reeman submits to no law but such as emanates from the body in which he is represented. "JohaAdamaa Works, vol. 1. p. 78. Surely this claim is not nierel for the community. It is for the individua free man also. Virginia was not behind Massachusetts. In her Bill of Rights, drawn by that determined patriot, George Mason, and adopted Junc 12, 1776, anterior to the DeclarIndep, is the following emphatic claim: " All men having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with and attachment to the community have the rightn fuiiffreig and cannotheiaxrd or deprived of theirproprrfu for public use within! their ownconsentor that of thoir representativessoelected, nor bound by any law to which they have not in like manner assentedfor the public good.” Here again the claim is not merely for the community. It is for “all men, ” and it is set forth thus positively in a Bill of Rights. Let Benjamin Franklin interpret these words. Here is a statement found among his papers, under date of 1769, while the colonists were echoing the cry, “ Taxation Without representation is tyranny: ” " That everymanof the commonalty except in fan insanepersons and eriminals, is of common right, an by the laws of od, a free manand entitled to the free enjoyment of liberty. That liberty or freedom consists in having an actual sharein the appointment of those who/rams Ihc lows, and who are to of the guardians of everyman: life. property, and peace; for the all of one man is as dear to him as the all of another: and the poor man has an equal right, but more n to huge representatives in the legislature than the 1"! one. “That they who have no voice nor vote in the electians of terelypmrewsleunvteadttiovtehsodsoewnhoot ehnajvoeyvloibleesrrtiyn.dbtoutlhorfu: TCPITWm iiirvi; for to be enslaved is to have govern ors whom other men have so overin, and be subject to laws made by the representatives os/olhera, without having hivl representatives of our own to give consent in our behalf." FranklinI Works.vol. 2 p. 37?. Here is no claim for communities merely, but exressly for “every man,: ineluding especiall “the poor man, " and Without distinction O color: is American. testimony is fitly crowned by the DeclarIndep, which, beginning with the reclamation that “all men are created equal, proceeds to assert that Governments “derive their Jusiipowers from the consent of the governed. ere again is no claim for communities, but for “all men; ” and this is the most authoritative interpretation of the original claim, thundered forth by Otis, and echoed throughout the land. It is idle to show that, in certain instances, the fathers failed to:1 ply the sublime principles which they de O ared. Their failure can be no apology for us on whom the duty is new cast. but there is still anotherinterpreter to be in voked. The maxim of Otis was not original with him. It may be found in the writings of John Locke, so remarkable for masculine sense and an exalted love of liberty. On a former occasion I adduced his authority, which is plain and positive. Pardon me if I call your attention to it once more. After asserting that government cannot take the property of anyone without his own consent or that of the majority of the people, the philosopher thus expresses himself: “For. if anyone shall claim a power to lay and levy taxes on the people by his own authority and with to"!suchcommit of (h: people.he thereby invades the fundamental law of property and subverts the end of government; for whatproperty have Iin that which another may by right take, when he pleases, t7.o Elilmfplf?"LocleesOiml Government, book ii, ch. Mr. Hallam, commenting on this text, does no the sitate to say, that, “ in substance it charges withusurpation all the established Governments of Europe;” “that neither the Revolution of 1688 nor the administration of William HI could have borne the test by which Locke tried the legitimacy of government.” (Hallam, History of Literature, vol. 3, pp. 545, 448.) A later English writer, Mr. Tremenhcere, commentinga so on this text, sets forth its 2 propositions as follows: “1st, that a political society can only be bound by the act of the majority; 2ndly, that taxation without Representation is tyranny.” (Tremenheere, Political Experience, p. 130.) such are the 2 rogositions which this English writer finds in oc e and which he cites for condemnation. Thus, if we repair with Otis to the very source from which he drew, we shall find that there was no claim for communities merely but for the individual man without distinction of color. Mr. Bright, our English friend, in one of his admirable speeches, only recentl has furnished an additional illustration. He s brought to lighta resolution from no less an authority than Lord Sonsas on an important occasion kindred to the present, when it was proposed to disfranchise all who were not of the established Church, as it is now proposed to disfranchise all who are not of a certain color. Speaking for the House of Lords, in conference with the Commons, this great constitutional lawyer thus insisted: “The Lords allowing that no man can claim a place by birthright, et conceive that giving a vote for representative in fiarlinmenl in the cssenliul privilege whereby con1lenglishman preserveshis property, and that whatsoever deprives him of such voto deprives him of his birthright." Here a in is the very cry of Otis; and you cannot ail to observe that the claim is not for communities merely, but for “every English man ” without distinction of color. Surely hero is enough on this head. But it is said that this claim is as applicable to women as to men, especially where women are tax payers. To this I reply, that Locke, Somers, Otis, and Franklin, in making this claim, did not give to it any such extent, and the question which I now submit is simply as to their meaning in the words “ Taxation without representation is Tyranny.” Clearly their claim was for men, believin, as they did, that women were represented t irough men; and it is hardly candid to cmbarrass the present debate, involving the rights of an Oppressed race by another question which is entirely independent. In saying that the claim was for men, I content myself with the authority of Theo hilus Par sons, afterward the eminent ChiefP Justice of Massachusetts, who, in a masterly state paper, known as the “ Essex Result, ” which was the prelude to the constitution of Massachusetts, thus discloses the opinion of the Fathers on this precise point: "Every free man. who hath snflicient discretion, should have a voice in the election of his loirisla tors. All the membersof the State are qualified to make the election, unless they have not sufficient discretion or are so situated as to have no wills of their own: persons not 21 years old are deemed of the former class from their want of years and experience. Women. what atgesocver they are of. are also considered as not having a sufficient acquired discretion: not from a deficiency in theirmental powers, but from the natural tenderness and delicacy of their minds, their retired modeof life, and various domestie duties. These concurring prevent that in tercourseWith the worldwhich is necessaryto qualify them for electors. Slaves are of the latter class and hngpfine wflls." ParlomLifeo/ ChiefJusliceParsons, p. The reasons assigned for the exclusion of women may be very unsatisfactory; but they show at least that the Fathers, when insisting that taxation and representation must go together, did not regard women any more than mine rs, within the sphere oft is commanding principle and here I leave this head of the argument, concluding as I began, that you cannot adopt the proposition now before the senate withoutsetiing at defiance thntgreat maxim of Constitutional Liberty, which was the rallying er of our Fathers. God forbid that there should be any such outrage. 3. Proceeding with the dissection of this proposition, I now exhibit it as a new form of concession to State Rights. such it is plainly on its face; such it is in reality; and the more you examine it the more complete the concession appears. Already it has been announced as such by those who seek to commend it in quarters of doubtful loyalty. Here, for instance, is a speech of Hon. John E. King, claimant of a seat in congress from Louisiana, only a few days ago, a dressed to the Legislature of his State, where, after calling attention to the present socalled amendment, he thus exults in what seemed to him the prospect of its adoption: “The present Congress is proceeding to amend without the 11 States that are unrepresentedin that body. However.there is If some good in all thinevil. this amendmentshould ass, and the Speakersaid that himselfand colleagues had no doubt that it would, it will settle forever the right of the States to legislate, each for itself, as to who shall be the voters therein.” Naw OrleansDelta, February 13, 1866. Thus, while de recating amendments to the Constitution in the absence of the 11 rebel States, the partisanof state Rights is reconciled to the proposition now pending, inasmuch as it is a triumph of this sectional pretension. Alas! that now. at the close of a rebellion in the name of state Rights, we should be considering calmly how to give this pernicious heresy new support iu tlgie Constitution itself. From the be ginning State Rights have been used for Oppression and wrong. The terrible war from which we are emerging makes it an especial duty now to restrain them, not to extend them. Of course I suggest no interference with the just rights of the States. These belong to the armonies of the Union. But, in the name of Justice, I insist that nothing further shall be done to invest the States With peculiar local power. If not tau ht by the lessons of the late war then be tang t by the principles avowed at the very beginnin of the Government. The object of the constitution was to ordain, under the authority of the people, a national Government possessing unity and power. The Confederation had been merely an agreement “between the States, ” styled “a league of firm friendship.” Found to be feeble and ine perative, through the pretension of State Rights, it gave way to the Constitution, which, instead of a "league, " created a “Union” in the name of the people of the U.S. Beginning with these inspiring and enacting words, “ We, the people, ” it was po nlar and national. Here was no concession to State Rights, buta recognition of the power of the people, from whom the Constitution proceeded. The States are acknowledged; but they are all treated as component arts of the Union in which they are absorbe under the Constitution which is the supreme law. There is but one sovereignty, and that is the sovereignty of the U.S. On this very account the adoption of the constitution was opposed by Patrick Henry and George Mason. he 1st exclaimed, “that this is a consolidated GOvernment is demonstra bly clearthe question turns on that poor little thing We the people, instead of the States.” The 2nd exc aimed, “ Whether the Constitution is good or bad it is a national Government, and no longer a Confederation." But against this powerful opposition the Constitution was adOpted in the name of the people of the U.S. Throughout the discussions, State Rights were treated with little favor. Madison said, “The States are only political societies, and never possessed the rights of sovereignty.” Gerry said, “The States have only corporate rights.” wilson, the philanthropic member from Pennsylvania, afterward a learned judge of the SCOTUS and authoro the "Lectures on Law, ” said, “Will a reward to State rights justify the sacrifice of the Rights of men? If we proceed on any other foundation than the last, our building will neither be solid nor lastin." such were the voices at that carly heroic ay and now at the end ofan unparalleled war to abase State Rights, we are asked to naturalize in the Constitution a new provision confirming to the States an odious pretension, shocking to the moral sense. But the character of this pretension belongs to another head. 4. Proccedin with the dissection of the proposition before t ie Senate I new exhibit it, not only as a concession to State Rights, which is admitted by a Louisiana supporter, but, should it be adopted, as the constitutional recognition of an Oligarchy, Aristocracy, Caste and Monopoly, founded on color. All this appears out o face; and as you examine the proposition, the intolcrable consequence becomes still more apparent. Thus far we have been saved from such shame. The proposition now before us assumes that the elective franchise may be denied or abridged constitutionally on account of race or color, and thus sanctions the usurpation, thereby investing those who deny or abridge it with exclusive political control, without any red to their number, though they may be a minority or even a small fraction of the people. What, sir, is this rancid pretension, if it be not an Oligarchy, Aristocracy, Caste, and Monopoly, founded on color, under the sanction of the Constitution? It is all these together, having beyond question the distinctive features of each and the distinctive discredit of each therefore odious in government, odious in religion, odious in economy, and altogether constituting an outrageous indecency beyond anything in any constitution of which history makes record. It is idle to say that this has been done already in the States. It may have been done in fact. But now you propose to give to this criminal fact the support of the Constitution and lift it into perpetua vigor. Who can depict the painful character of such a proposition, especially at this time, when the epublic is moved by every sentiment of justice, honor, gratitude, and self respect, to beat down such a pretension as on would beat down Satan under your feet? Already the country has been harassed and degraded for generations by the Slave Power, which was nothing but an Oligarchy, Aristocracy, Caste, and Monopoly; and now, when this Power has been overcome in battle it is proposed to inaugurate it anew, with a slight change of name, but with the same field of action and with the same malignant spirits to wield its energies. By your concession it tyrannized be fore; and now by your concession it will tyran nize again. The citizens whom it once trampled on as slaves it will continue to trample on as outcasts; and it will set up your permission embodied in the Constitution itself; God willing never by my vote. 5. Proceeding with the proposition before us, I denounce it as petrifying inthe question the wretched pretension of a whi Constitute mans Government. At this moment, when we are strikin the wprd “white” from the statutes of the U.S.; when this word has disappeared even from the postoffice laws; when, by a vote of the HoRep, this word has been condemned in the laws regulating the elective franchise in the DistCol, it is proposed to insert its equiva lentin the Constitution itself. To exhibit this shame is surely enough to cause you to turn away from it. Do not say that it is not proposed to insert it. Whatis the concession that t“he elective franchise maybe denied or abridged on account of race or color” butan insertion of the word “ white” in the Constitution? In that text, as it still stands, from the beginning to the end, from the Preamble to the signature of George Washington, or the last word of the last Amendment, there is no recognition of color." For the sake of decency, let us keep it so. 6. Proceeding still further with the pending proposition, I denounce it as assuming what is alse in constitutional law, that color can be a qualification for an elector. The Constitution says that “the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerousbranch of the State Legislature. ” Of course this leaves open the $uestion what is meant by “qualifications.” at this Word must be interpreted in the light of the Consti tution, which knows no "color, " and again in the light of the DeclarIndep, which knows no “color, ” and yet again in the l“ight of common sense, which refnses to recognize color” as a “qualification, ” in anyjust sense of this term. Consult the dictionaries of the day, and you will find it means “fitness, ” “ability, ” “accomplishment, ” “the state of being qualified; ” but it does not mean “color.” It is applicable to the conditions of age, residence, character, education, property, and the payment oftaxcs; bntit cannot be applicable to “ color.” The English dictionaries most in vovue at the time of our fathers were those of Iiailey and Johnson. Look at these. According to Bai ley, who was the earliest, “qualification” is thus defined: fl.) “ That which/its an; per nonor thinafor any por lmlm urpoee. particular faculty, or endowment or accom According to Johnson, who is the highest authority, it is thus defined:.) "Mwhseh makes any permn or thingfir." lav "It is in the powerof the prince to make piety and virtue become the fushliou. if he would make them necessary quahflcalwnstor [art ferment.” g2: "Acmqzlilhmlp I ample. Good qualificahom of m ind enable a magistrate to perform his duty and tend to create public esteem of him.” Anerburu. Thus, according to these definitions, “ qualification" means “fitness” or “accomplisment, " and according to the examples from classical writers, it “ means qualities like “ iety" and virtue, " or like faculties of mind.” Obviously it cannot embrace color, which is a physical condition, insurmountable in its character. An insurmountable condition is not a qualification but a disfranchirement. As wed say that the quality of the hair or the length of the foot should be a “qualification, ” as the color of the skin. The whole pretension is one of the false glosses fastened upon the Constitution by slavery, which must now be sloughed off. But the pending proposition adopts it and gives to it a pernicious life. 7. Again, I denounce the proposition as pos itively tying the hands of Congress in its interpretation of aRepublican Government, so that under the guarantee clause it must recognize an Oligarchy, Aristocracy, Caste, and Monopoly, founded on color, with the tyranny of taxation without representation as republican iu character, which I insist they are not. At present the hands of Congress are not tied. Congress is free to act generously nobly, truly, according to the highest idea of a republic, discounte naueing all inequality of rights and the tyranny of taxation without representation. Let the pending proposition fin a place in the Constitution, and the guarantee clause will be restrained in its operation. The 2 clauses taken together, as they must be, will read substantially as follows: “The U.S shall taranty to every State in the Union a RFG; it being understood that the denial or abridgment of the elective franchise on account of race or color and the tyranny of taxation without representation are not incon sistent with ar publican government.” In other words, the enial or abridgment of the elective franchise on account of race or color, and the tyranny of taxation without representation will be recognized in the Constitution as republican in character. Of course all attempt to enforce this guarantee against an Oligarchy, Aristocracy, Caste, and Monopoly, founded on color, or against the t ranny ot taxation without representation will be from this time impossible. The precious power which now exists will be lost forever. 8. Again, I denounce the reposition as pos itively tying the hands O on ress in completing and consummating the abolition of slavery. By the 2nd clause of the recent constitutional amendment congress is cXpressly empowered to fenforce” tie abolition of slavery y “appropriate legislation.” In pursuance of this power the Senate, by what is known as the Civil Rights Bill, has already updertaken to establish equality of cml rights in all the States and Territories, so that hereafter in our courts at least there shall be no discrimination on account of color. It was justly insisted that such “legislation” was needed to “enforce” the abolition of slavery, and on this account was constitutional. The Senate acted accordingly. The bill has passed this bed by more than a 2/3rds vote. Obviously y the same title equality in political rights can be established also under this amendment ifsuch equality shall be deemed important to “enforce” the abolition of slavery, or, in other words, to complete and consummate the good work. In the exercise of a granted power Congress is the sole judge of the “means” it shall em lo; and this conclusion is sustained not on by reason but also by the SCOTUS in solemn jn gments. You will remember the familiar precedents, which I in sist are decisive and now, in the face of these judgments, in the face of the reason of the case, and in the face of the authoritative precedent of the Senate establishing equality of civil rights, it is proposed to insert in the Constitution a provision despoiling Congress of its power under the constitutional amendment, so that hereafter that amendment, which should be inte reted generously and to advance liberty will O changed so as to read, “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation it being understood that its all not interfere for this purpose with any denial or abridgment of the elective franchise in any Stateon account of race or color.” Thus again will a beneficent power be lost at a moment when all is neede for the safety and renown of the Republic. 9. Again, I denounce this proposition as in stalling recent rebels to govern loyal citizens under the sanction of the Constitution. The ruling class began and sustained the rebellion. The citizeus whom you disfranchise were loyal, and some of them poured out their red blood for the Republic, and yet we are now asked to intrench this ruling class in the constitution, so that they can wield unchecked power, while loyal millions are humbled at their feet. The bare statement of the case offends the reason and the conscience. Pray, who may just] look to the Republic for protection? Is it terebel or the loyalist? Is it the citizen who has caused all your woes, and now ashes his teeth at your triumph, or is it the citizen who has watched your flag with sympathetitzl pride, and now rejoices in your triumph? he can hesitate? and yet the proposition now before the Senate ves the palm of power and honor to the reel class, and fixes this preeminence in the Constitution itself. It will not do to so, with Cain “Am I my brothers keeper?” on are your brothers keeper; and you must see that he is saved from cruelo pression. 10. nd lastly, I denounce this proposition as a Compromise of Human Rights, the most immoral, indecent and utterly shameful of any in our history. Iersous out of the Senate have sought to vindicate it as other compromises have been vindicated in times past, by rere senting it as something which it is not. This is done by exhibitin one side only of the compromise and then oning it “punitive” in character; as if in 1850the admission of California, which was one side of the Compromisc, had been exhibited only, while the unutterable atrocity of the Fugitive Slave Bill, which was the other side of the Compromise, had been concealed from view. The present Compromise, like all other compromises, has 2 sides; in other words, it is a concession for a consideration. On one side ifis conceded that the States may under the Coustitution, exclude citizens counted by the million from the body politic and pradtice the tyranny of taxation without representation, provided, on the other side, that there is a corresponding diminution of representative power in the lower House of Congress, without, however, touching the representative power in the Senate. Of course, the transcendent feature of this Compromise is the criminal concession, constituting, as it does, the sacrifice of brave defenders, and even of a whole race to whom we owe protection. The consideration is small. It will be forgotten when the gigantic concession will loom in history can landmark of dishonor. There have been other Compromises of Hu man Rights in times past. But considerin the grandeur of the occasion; the promises of the Fathers; the extent of present obligations; the promptings of gratitude; the demands of public faith; the demands of public security, and the good name of the Republic, all of which are now involved, I am sure that no compromise so discreditable and disastrous was ever before proposed. A feeble prototype may be found In that intolerable Treaty known as the Assi ento contract from which every Englishman now turns with a blush, where at the end of an unprecedentedwar England bartered all that had been won by the victories of Marlborough for the privilege of supplying slaves to the Spanish colonies. The slave trade received a solemn sanction, and England pocketed the dishonest profits; just as now a kindred offense on a grander scale is to receive a solemn sanction, and we who sanction it are to pocket the profits in political power. Do not talk, sir, of this measure as "punitive" in character, unless you mean that it is punitive of our benefactors, for this is the only character it can bear in history. On a former occasion I entreated you not to copy the example of Poutius Pilate. who handed over the Saviour of the world, in whom he found no fault at all, to be scourged and crucified. It is my duty now to remind you that you go further than Pontius Pilate. He was a mocker and a jesterbut he received nothing for what he did. 1 on do. Not contentwit resolving the Senate into a Pretorium, you imitate Judas who betrayed the Saviour for 30 pieces of silver, and you imitate the soldiers who appropriated to themselves the raiment of the Saviour. Do not answer me with a sneer. Has not the Saviour himselftold us that what we do to the cast we do to Him? Ay, sir, in offering fellow citizens to be sacrificed, in betraying them for less than " 30 ” Representatives in Congress and in appropriating their political miment, you do all this to the Saviour himself. Pardon the necessary plainness of my speech. I speak for my country, which I seek to save from dishonor; I speak for fellow citizens whom I seek to save from outrage and I speak for that public faith and public security in which is bound up the welfare of all. serum: or cease nous. Mr. President, such is the argument for the rejection of the pending proposition. F following it from the beginning you have seen, 1st, how this proposition carrles into the Constitution itself the idea of Inequality of Rights, thus defiling that unspotted text; 2ndly, how it is an express sanction of the acknowledged tyranny of taxation without representation; 3rdly, how it is a concession to State Rights at a moment when we are recovering from a terrible war waged against us in the name of State Rights; 4thly, how it is the constitutional recognition of an Oligarchy, Aristocrncy, Caste, and Monopoly, founded on color; 5thly, how it petrifies in the Constitution the wretched retension of a white mans Government; sixthy, how it assumes what is false in constitutional law, that color can be a “qualification ” for an elector; scventhly, how it positively ties the hands of Congress in fixing the meanin of a republican government, so that under the guarantee clause it will be constrained to recognize an Oligarchy, Aristocracy, Caste and Monopoly founded on color, together with the tyranny of taxation without representation, as not inconsistent with such a government; 8th ly, how it positively ties the hands of conrcss in completing and consummatin the abolition of Slavery according to the 2nd clause of the Constitutional Amendment, so that it cannot for this purpose interfere with the denial of the elective franchise on account of color; 9th ly, how it installs recent rebels in permanent power over loyal citizens; and, 10thly, how it shows forth in unmistakable character as a Compromise of Human Rights, the moat immoral, indecent, and utterly shame ful of any in our history. All this you have seen, with sin and sorrow, I trust. Who that is moved to sympathy for his fellow man can lis ten to the story without indignation? Who that has not lost the power of reason can fail to see the cruel wrong? and now the question occurs, what shall be done? To this I answer, reject at once the pending proposition; show it no favor; give it no quarter. Let the count see that you are impatient of its presence. at there are other propositions in the form of substitutes. For anyone of these I can vote. They may differ in efficiency; but there is nothing in them immoral or shameful. There is, 1st, the proposition to found representation on voters instead of population, and, 2ndly, the proposition to secure Equality in political rights by constitutional amendment or by not of Congress. REPRESENTATIONrousnsp or venue. The proposition to found representation on voters instead of population was originally introduced by me during the last Congress. almost at the same time I introduced a series of resolutions declaring not only the power but the duty of the U.S. to aranty republican governments in the rebel States on the asis of the DeclarIndep so that the new governments should be founde on the consent of the governed and the equality of all persons before the law. Thus, while proposing to found representation on voters I at the same time asserted the power of Congress under the Constitution to secure Equality in political rights. The proposition with regard to voters was much discussed during the recess of Congress. At the beginning of the present session it seemed to find favor. But at last statistics were adduced tending to show that it would transfer power from eastern States to western States in proportion to the excess of females over males in the former; and this ab normal circumstance was made an argument inst it. Since then it has lgiven place to the offensive proposition now be ore the Senate. The proposition to found representation on voters instead of population maybe seen, 1st, in what it does not 0, and 2ndly, in what it does do. Seeing it in whatit does notdo, all will confess thatit does not carry into the Constitution itself the idea ofInequality of Rights, thus defiling that unspotted text; that it gives no sanction to the acknowledged tyranny of taxation without Representation; that it makes no concession to State Rights, at a moment when we are recovering from a terrible war waged against us in the name of State rights; that it does not recognize an Oligarchy, Aristocracy, Caste, and Monopol, founded on color; that it does not petrify in the Constitution the wretched pretension of a white mans Government; that it does not assume what is false in constitutional law, that color can be a “qualification” for a voterthat it does not positively tie the hands of Congress in fixing the meaning of a Republican Government, so that under the guarantee clause it will be constrained to recognize an Oligarchy, Aristocracy, Caste, and Monopoly founed on color, together with the tyranny of taxation without representation, as not inconsistent with such a government; that it does not positively tie the and s of Congress in comleting and consum mating the abolition of slavery according to the 2nd clause of the constitutional amendment; that it does not install recent rebels in permanent power over loyal citizens; that it oes not show forth in unmistakable character as a Compromise of Human Rights, the most immoral, indecent, and utterly shameful of any in our history. All these things, so offensive to the conscience and the reason, this proposition does not do. In all these respects it is at least blameless. On the other hand, without inflicting any stigma upon the Constitution or upon the Republic, without abandoning any principle, without making any concession to a States, without tying the hands of Congress, and without any Compromise of Human Rights, it does rearra n e the basis of representation, so as to accomp isli all that is proposed even by the most sanguine supporters of the other proposition, and it does this effectually without the opportunity for evasion which is afforded by the other proposition. The alleged inequality in its operation, owing to the excess of females over males in certain States, may make you hesitate to adopt it; but better take representation founded on voters even with any such alleged inequality, than do a grievous wrong. Better even wrong yourselves than wrong others. Let me confess that I was tempted to this proposition by the conviction that I was carrying out the cherished idea of Massachusetts as embodied in her own constitution. According to a recent amendment the representation in both branches of the Legislature is founded on “legal voters ” and not on popula tio“n. Here are the wor s: A censusof the legal voters of eachcity and town, on the 1st of May, shall be taken and returned into the officeof the secretaryof the Commonwealth.” “The enumeration aforesmdjhall doterminc the apportionment of Representatives for the periods between the taking of the census." “The HoRepshall consistof240 members, which shall he apportioned by the Legislature. at its 1st sessionafter the return O each on meration as aforesaid.to the severnl countiesof the Commonwealth, cmmlly, naneorly as maybe, accordingto their relative numbersof legal voters.as ascertained by the next preceding special enumeration." “The Senateshall consist of 40 members. The GeneralCourt shall, at its1st session afler eachnext preceding special enumeration divide the Commonwealth into 40 districts of adjacent territory, each district to contain, as nearlyas maybe, an equalnumber of leg, alvote", according to the enumeration afore l. 5a"Each district shall elect one Senator." Obviously in adopting this rule Massachusetts has followed what seems to be a correct principle. Representative government is an invention of modern times. t was unknown in antiuity. Athens was a democracy where the people met in public assembly for the government of the State; but there was no representative body chosen by the people for this purpose. The public assembly was practicable in that age as the State was small, and the assembly at no time exceeded 5,000 citizens a large town meeting or mass meetin, we might call it, which Milton has termed “t e fierce democ racie.” But where the territo was extensive and the population scattere and humor ous, there could be no assembly of the whole body of citizens. To meet this precise difficulty the representative system was devised. B a machinery, so obvious that we are aston ised it was not employed in the ancient commonwealths, the people, though scattered and numerous, are gathered, through their chosen representatives, into a small and deliberative assembly, where, without tumult or rashness, they may consider and determine all questions which concern them. In every representative body, properly constituted, the people are practically resent. If then the representative body is a substitute for the people themselves, meeting in primary assem lies, it would seem that it should e founded upon the people who compose the rimary assemblies; in other words, upon the cgal voters. Ordinarily there may be little difference between the proportion of legal voters and the proportion of population; but strictly the representative system is the agent of legal voters, and therefore the logic of the case is better satisfied if it be founded on legal voters rather than on population. With me this is no new idea. (Tn another occasion in my own State, I asserted it. This was in a convention for revising the constitution of Massachusetts as long ago as 1858. Pardon me if I read a brief passage from a speech in that conven1tion, not from any importance which I attach to it, but as showing our completely at that time this rule seemed to me just:, “ A practical questionherearises, whother this rule should be applied to the whole body of population, ci lneursi, no;rwwohmetehne, rehildren and unnaturalized for it should be applied to only who exercisethe electoral franchise: in other words, to voters. Itisprobablothat thornle would generally produce nearly similar results in both cases.as the voters, exceptin a few places, would hear a uniform proportion to the whole population. But it will be easy to determinewhat the Girinciple of the representative system requires. ince the object of the systemistoprovido a rnctioalsubstituteforthe meet ipgsof the people its ould hefoundedinjust proportion on the num oreof thosewho, according to our constitution. can take part in those moetings, thntis, upon the qualified voters. The representativebody should be a miniature or abridgment of the electoral body, in other words. of those allowed to anticipate in public affairs." Sumner, RecentSmuI, p. 217. Speechon theRepresentativeSystem, July 7, 1353. In this view I found myself supported by 2 illustrious names in our history. Mr. Jeffer son, shortly after the victory at Yorktown had rescued Virginia from invasion and secured national Independence, prepared a draft of a constitution for his native State, which expressl provided that “the number of delegateswhich each county may send shall be in proportion to the number of its qualified electors, and the whole number of delegates for the State shall be proportioned to the whole number of qualified electors in it." This proposition, which is substantially the Rule of 3 applied to vote was not adopted, but it still exists as a record O opinion. Sometime afierward, in the debates in the Convention which framed the Constitution, Mr. Madison have his authority to the same conclu“sion, as fo lows: It has been very properly observed that representation was an expedient by which the meetingof the people themselves was rendered unnecessary, and that repreacnlntwcnoull! lhercfore, to bear a proportion to the voterswhic their condilucnln.if convened, iqouuld remediveh/have." Mculuoa, Debut“, vol. 2, 1). Thus, representation founded on voters seems to be commended by authority and principle. Its adoption now would at least ire symmetry to our national system and made the representative more precisely the embodied presence of his constituents, while at the same time it would tend to enlarge the suffrage and to bar monize sectional reteusions with the national will when exertedpfor Human Rights. If rep“ rescutation were founded on voters the States would care little if Congress should annul all inequality in the elective franchise on account of color. EQUALITYm POLITICAL incurs. But there are other propositions which to my mind are more satisfactory, because they, reach the special necessity of the hour, and provide the only effectual remed. Speaking in the name of national justice and for the national safety, they cannot be put aside with indifference; nor is it wise to say that any measure of justice is not practical. I refer, of course, to the propositions, in different forms, to secure that Great Guarantee, Equality in political rights, by constitutional amendment, or by act O Congress, or by both. A constitutions amendmentwhich shall place Equality of political rights under the safeguard of a special text may he superfluous, but it is not unconstitutional or immoral. It will be supplementary to provisions already in the constitution, and will be in the nature of adeclaratory statute removing all doubts and cavils. It will be like an additional force in mechanics, or like a reenforcement in the field. It will be reduplication in a new form. On such an occasion, where such a cause is in issue, I wel come every alliance; and such I regard the piroposition of the Senfrom Missouri, [Mr. ssnnason.] raorosrrion prositcom: room" av nor or conDRESS The other proposition, which looks to the direct action of Congress under the existing Constitution and its amendments, is obviously the simplest and most practical, inasmuch as it deals with the exigency promptl, frankly, and according to the necessities ofy the hour. It does not undertake to not by indirection; nor does it postpone to an in efinite future what cannot be postponed without detriment to the Republic. reusing to procrastinate it savns all. such a proposition is commended by every argument of reason, humanity! an patriotism. To say that it is not constitutional is to say that the Constitution itself is not constitutional, for it is derived from the very heart of the Constitution and is filled with all its best life blood. Something has been said of the form in which the proposition has been presented. There is the bill of the Senfrom Illinois, [ML Yarssd which he has maintained in a speech of singular originality and power, that has not been an swered, and I do not hesitate to say cannot be answered. By this bill it is provided that all citizens in any State or Territory shall be protected in the full and equal enjoyment and exercise of their civil and political rights, including the right of suifrage. This is founded on the consideration that, by the abolition of slavery, the slave became at once a citizen, subject oulyto such disabilities as are common to other citizens, and that, by the 2nd clause of the constitutional amendment, Congress is empowered to enforce the abolition of slavery by appropriate legislation. On this foundation the Senator places his bill, assuming that to complete the abolition of slavery, all restrictions, penalties, or deprivations of right, resulting from slavery in any State or Territory must be made to cease. The proposition that I have had the honor of firesenting, is a JtResolution, which after eclaring the duty of Congress to guaranty a RFG in States where the governments have la sod, and also, the duty to complete the abolition of slavery by the removal of all relics of this wrong, proceeds to provide that there shall be no Oligarchy, Aristocracv, Caste, or Monopoly, nor any denial of rights civil or political on account of color or race, but all persons shall be equal before the law whether HI the court room oratthe ballot box. Not doubting the power of congress to carry out this principle everywhere within the jurisdiction oipthe U.S., I content myself for the present by asserting it only in the lapsed States lately in rebellion, where the two fold duty to guaranty a republican government and to enforce the abolition of slaveryis beyond question. To that extent I now urge it., osJscrrous or roux. Both these propositions are opposed as informal and ine perative, because they are without machinery or penalty. such is the objection, if I understand it. As it has been made I answer it. Each proposition on its face is an act of Congress prohibiting the denial of certain rights on account of color. In this respect each is at least a congressional interpretation of the Constitution; and it is by no means clear that it could not be enforced in the courts. The bill, which has already passed the HoRep, striking out the word “white” in the electoral laws of the DistCol, is without machinery or penalty; but it is at least a congressional declaration, to be followed, of course, by other legislation with proper machinery and penalty; and this is the precise character of the propositions presented y the Senfrom Illinois and by myself. Of course the objections to these propositions, if valid at all, must be equally valid against the bill for enfranchisement in the DistCol, and against every other congressional declaration without machinery or penalty. It is at most an objection of form, which I put aside and advance at once to the substance. The question is too vast and the times are too serious for a special demurrer. It must be tried on its merits. This question is as to the power of Congress to establish Equality of political rights at least in the rebel States. If Congress has this beneficent power, then exercise it in such form as shall seem best with machinery and penalt or without machinery and penalty; but, in Go s name, exercise it, for the sake of the country which suffers from your delay. rm: rowsas or cosonrss. Has Congress the power to secure Equality of political rights, at east in the rebel States? I do not at this time raise the question of its power throughout the U.S., but in the rebel States. If this question were less tran scendent in its relations, or if it could be approached calmly and without prejudice, in the ight of reason, I cannot doubt the judgment you would ive. Butyou must bring to its determination tesome simple desire tor truth undisturbed by external influences which would control a judicial tribunal; for, in the determination of your powers under the Constitution, you are a judicial tribunal. It will not be enough to den the hencficent power orto mock at those who nd it in the Constitution. You must answer their aments. 1. I do not like to well on what has been so often discussed and somuch misunderstood; and yet I must remind you of the power of Congress over the rebel States from the necessity of the case, because after the overthrow of legitimate governments, whose members were sworn to support the Constitution of the U.S., there was no other role possible for these States than that of Congress; precisely as the Territories according to Chief Justice Marshall, in afamous judgment, fell under “the power and jurisdiction of Congress" from the necessity of the case. I do not say that a State becomes a technical Territo, as that term is understood among us; but I 3:; say, that in the lapse of the rebel States and in the absence of egitimate governments with members sworn to support the Constitution, these States fell under “ the power and jurisdiction of Congress" until such time as they are reorganized according to the requirements of the Constitution. In the exercise of such a power and jurisdiction thus cast upon it, Congress must see that all loyal citizens without distinction of color take part in the formation of the new governments. 2. I do not like to dwell on another source of power, which is found in the Rights of War; lint this too must be made plain. obody doubts that the U.S. werejustified in asserting their so remacy in the rebel States by force of arms; at the war, when once be gun, was subject to all the conditions of war, accordingto t leRights of War as found in the Law of hations, doubly oblitory on us, 1st, because we belong to the Pgamily of Nations, and 2ndly, because the Law of Nations is expressly recognized by the Constitution itself. Now, accordin to the ights of War, as found in the Law ofations, a conquering Power is justified in requiring not only Indemnity for the Past but Security for the Future. It depends upon the people of the U.S., as Represented 1n congress, to determine the guarantees of this security. In support of this conclusion, I ask attention to a familiar authority whose statement seems to cover the case. I read from Vattel: “The whole right of the conqueror is derived from uahfinbleseLf defeme. He may in the 1st place do himselfjuslice respecting thop ject which had given rise to the war, and indemnify himself for the expensesand damages he has sustained by it; he may, according to the exigency of the case, subeet the nation to punishment by way of example; e may, even, if prudence so require. render her inc doingmilchiofwith thesomecaseinfulure." The offending party when ednquered may be rendered incapable of doing mischief with the same ease in future. This is according to natural justice. Then again the same familiar authority expresses himself as follows: “If the inhabitants have been personally guilty of any crime against the conqueror. may bytpnyuf n sohmen deprive them of then rights and pnmlegea. This he may also doil the inhabitants have taken up arms against him and thus become his enemies. In that casehe owes them no more than what is due from a humane and equitablo conqueror to his vanquished foes." Vallel, ook iii. cap. 18, sec.194. Surely out of this ample power Congress cannot hesitate in requiring Justice to the wards and allies of the republic through whom the Rebellion was crus ed; especial when without justice to them Security in the Future is nothing but a mockery and a phantasmagoria. 8. From these sources of power I pass to that other which is found in the constitutional obligation to guaranty to every State of the Union a RFG lHere is the text of the Constitution: “The U.S shall guaranty to every State in this Union a RFG." This obligation is peremptory and not discretionary. It is shall and not may. The U.S. must do it. Of course, in executing this guarantee, you must aflix a meaning to the term “RFG.” To do this I have already in this debate endeavored to show the essential principles whichour fathers had at heart when they founded the Republic. I shall not weary you now with the historic statement. It is enough if I present the conclusion. Accordin to the fathers all men are equal in rights, an as corollaries from this truth all just government is founded on the consent of the governed, and taxation without representation IS tyranny. such was their idea o a Republican Government. It is idle to allege against this definition, that there were property “ qualifications” in most of the States by which the number of voters was essentially limited. This is true. But it must not be forgotten that a “ property qualification, " unless unreasonably large, is not a disfranchisement. It is a condition, sometimes onerous, but notin its nature insur mountable as is the condition of color, and it is equally aplicableto all and yet it is apparent from the recorded opinions of the fathers, that even this “ qualification” was regarded as inconsistent with the genius of republican institutions. It is idle also to allege against this definition, the tolerationof slavery. This was sad enough; but the fathers who did it regarded slave as absolutely exceptional. According to theldefinition of a slave, he has no willof his own, and can give no “consent” to government. Therefore he was not considers as belonging to the “bodpolitic.” But as he was not represente he was not taxed, except as property. Indeed, a careful examination of his relations to the Government will show how completely in his case the rights of the “people” are left untouched. He was not regarded as one of the “people, ” and therefore was not under the safeguard of the rights of the “people.” But all this was changed when he became a free man. He was then one of the “ people, ” whose property could not be taken by taxation without representation, and whose consent was essential to government. The difference was not between whites and blacks, but between slaves and free men. All free men without distinction of color were citizens. Listen, if you please, to the Federalist, in an article which has been attributed to each of the 3 eminent authors of that collection, and which the Senfrom Maryland [Mr. Johnson] assumed was by Madison, but which is claimed for Hamilton, in the last edition of the Fakral ist by his son. Here are the important words: " It is only under the pretext that the laws have transferred the negroes into subjects of propert, that a place is disputed them in the computation o numbers: and IT IS AIHHTTEDTHATH THE LAWS “ERE TO RESTORE THE RIGHTS “HICH HAVEBEENTAKENAWAY THE NEGRO!!! COULD NO LONGER BB REFUSED ANEQUAL BHAREOI REPRESENTATION WITH THE OTHIB IHHABITANTB." – Tlle Federalist, No.54, by Hamilton. such is the exposition of the actual Constitution by Hamilton. According to him, “If the laws were to restore the rights which have been taken away, the negroes could no longer be refused an equal share O representation with the other inhabitants.” at this very hour has sounded. The laws have restored the rights which had been taken away, and it is now your duty to see that the people who have rened their rights are no longer refused an e uaIghare of representation. he opinion of amilton on this vital question is stil further attested by his saying that the liberty for which our fathers fought was the “ right O each individual to a share in the Government;” that “the electors are to be the great bod of the people of the U.S., ” and still urther, by his ropposition in his plan of a Constitution, as follows: " Representatives shall be chosen. except in the 1st Instance by the free malealum and inhabitants of the scvera States comprehended in the Union. all of whom of the ageof 21 years and upw shall bemilled toan equalvole." In this proposition, which, though not adopted in terms, may be regarded as the pole star of our Fathers, the distinguished author followed the Continental Congress which appor;i0ned the war expenses among “the free citizens and inhabitants" without distinction of color. Curiously enough we find confirmation of the true principle where you would little expect it, in that. very Dred Scott case, which undertook to blast a race. Chief Justice Tnney on that occasion laid down a rule which at this moment is applicable to every “citizen” without distinction of color. Here is his rule: “ The words, people of the U.S and citizens are synon moustermsand mean the same thing. They both escribethe political body, who, according to our republican institutions. form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Governmentthrouub their representatives. They are what. we familiarly call the sovereign people, and every citizen i0 oneoflhis pen [2 and a constituentmember of this moreionty." 19 awardRep. 404. This is strong enough; but the Chief Justice is sti"ll more precise: There is not, it is believed.to be found in the theories of writers on governmentor in any actual egrperiinent heretofore tried an exposition of the term citizen. which has not been censulered as conferring the actual possession and "downs"! or the perfect right porfivaic cuusems, ctiiovnilan adnd epnojoliy li/cmale."no tf lbaind, enpt.ir4e7 e6q.ualityof Thus does that terrible judgment, which was like a ban to the colored race, now testify to their indisputable rights as “citizens.” Therefore I do not hesitate to say that when the slaves of our country became “citizens” they took their place in the “ body politic” as a component part of the “people, ” entitled to Equal Rights and under the protection of these 2 guardian principles, 1st, that all just government stands on the consent of the governed, and 2ndly, that taxation without representation is tyranny; and these rights it is the duty of Congress to guaranty as essen tial to the idea of a Republic. The aspiration of Abraham Lincoln, inhis marvelous utterance at Gettysburg, was that “government of the people by the people and for the people should not perish from the earth.” But who willven t“ure to exclude millions of citizens from the people?” If the governments in the rebel States are brought to this touch stone it will be found that they must fail. The departure from the true standard is not merely theoretical, as it might be regarded in States where the disfranchised are few in number, but there is an absolute failure to come within the conditions required. It is not decent to call a State republican where more than a majority of its “ people, ” constituting the larger part of its “ Ody politic, ” is permanently isfranchised; nor is it decent to call a State republican where any considerable portion of its “people, ” constituting an essen tial part of its “ body politic, ” is permanently disfranchised. Even if in times past such a State could have been treated as republican, it willnot do to treat it so now. It lac s the vital elementsof a republican government, and must be treatedaccordingly. do not dwell on this point, for it seems absurd to call it in question. Clearly it is your duty to enforce the guarantee of a republican government. By the oaths you have taken to support the Constitution, you musttake care that in all the States where governments have lapsed this guarantee shall e carriedout. In the performance of this duty you mayproceed either by an enabling act, establishingin advance the conditions on which these States shall be restored to their “ practical relationswith the Union, ” or by an act directly annulling all constitutions and laws of any such States inconsistent with a republican vernment.The power is in Congress. It has eenrecognized informal terms by the supremeCourt; and on are the final judge of the “means” on she I employ. To say that you havenot the power is to abdicate at a cat exiglency the very means of salvation. this toing awa your arms in the very face of the enemy. this to s ike the Constitution at a momentwhen its ful cannonade is needed for theoverthrowof wron. Clearly you have the power, and upon your eads will be the fearful responsibility if you fail to exercise it. 4. From this source of power inn the Constitution I pass to another in the Constitution also, supplied by the 2nd clause of the constitutional amendment. It is there provided that Congress shall “ enforce” the abolition of slavery by “appropriate legislation.” Under these words, according to all rules ofinterpretation and the judgments of the Supreme Court, Congress is empowered to do what in its discretion seems best to this end. It may adopt any “means” which shall seem “appropriate.” It may select any weapon in the arsenal of power. I do not stop to cite the judgments of the court or to dwell on this power. The case is clear, and I challen e any contradiction. As the grant is recent it is not open to any suggestion of loss orwniver by desuetude or non-user. It is fresh as the abolition of slaver itself, and at this moment is just as vital. on may as well deny the one as the other. Here, even at the cost of repetition, allow me to remind you that already during the present session the Senate, in pursuance O this power, has undertaken to pass a bill entitled To protect all persons in the U.S. in their civil rights and furnish the means of their vindication.” The declared object of the bill, in its ver title, is the protection of all persons in the U.S. in their civil rights; and this object is carried out by the following provision: “There shall be no discrimination in civil rights or immunities among the inhabitants of any State or Territm uqf(heLmmlState:on account of raco.color or previouscondition of slavery." The bill proceeds to provide machinery and pen alties for the enforcement of this prohibition. Mark, if you please, that this is not merely in the rebel States, nor even in the States where slavery was recently abolished, but everywhere throughoutthe U.S. All this is done by virtue of that very clause of the constitutional amendment which I now adduce. It is done by Congress, in the exercise of its discretion, in order to “ enforce” the abolition of slavery. It is the “means” which Congress adopts to this end. It is the wee on which Congress selects from the arsenal O power. But surely, if Congress, in order to “enforce” the abolition of slaver, can secure all persons through out the U.S. in their civil rights, it can, out of the same abundant source of power, secure all persons throughout the U.S. in their political rights, and this is precisely what is propOSed by the bill of the Senfrom Illinois. My own proposition, as I now present it, aims for the present at securing political rights throughout the rebel States; &t the irresistible argument is the same in ch case. of slavery. I do not stop now.to exhibit the elective franchise as essential to the security of the freedman, without which he will be the prey of slavery in some new form, and without which he cannot rise to the stature of manhood. In opening this debate I have presented this argument fully. suffice it to say in this place that Emancipation will fail in its beneficence if you do not assure to the former slave all the rights of the citizen. Until you do this your work will be only half done, and the freedman will be only half a man. such, sir, are the 4 sources of power in Congress, each of them ample: 1st, the necessity of the case, as with Territories, where there is no other jurisdiction; 2ndly, the Rights of War, under which all needful safeguards for the future may be required; 3rdl, the duty to guaranty to every State in the nion a RFG; and 4thly, the authority to “enforce” the abolition of slavery by appropriate legislation. Out of each and all of these sources congress may derive its power. It only remains that it should act as becomes the representatives of the American people. Each is to enforce” the abolition l UIOENCY 01"OURDUTIES. Mr. President, as I am about to close, allow me to remind you once more, that from the nature of the case and from the!character of your obligations, the work of Emancipation mustbe completed by the National Government It cannot be left to become the sport of sectional prejudice or wayward passion. It began with you and it is for on to give toit that final assurance which can he found only in Enfrunchisement. It is for you “to maintain" the former slave in that liberty which he received at your hands. such a duty cannot be renounced or deleflated. It must be sacredly performed by the listional Government accoring to its original pledge in the Proclamation of Emancipation and according to all the suggestions of reason. Humanity, too, joins in the cry. You cannot consent that the child Emancipation, born of your breath, shall be surrendered to the custody of enemies. Take it in your arms, I entreat on, and nurse it into strength. Be instructedyby the examples of history, teaching that the masters of slaves cannot be trusted to legislate for them. This conclusion has been announced by the best English statesmen, one of whom thus fathers together the result. It is Brougham who speaks: “I entircl concur in the observations of ltir. Burke. repeatedan morehappily expressedbyMr. Cannin, that the mastersof slavesare not to be trustedwit making laws upon slavery; that nothing they do is everfound effectual; and thatif by some miracle they ever chance to enact a wholesomeregulation. it is alwaysfound to want what Mr. Burke callstlle execu ton/principle; it fuils to executeitself." 11rouglmmn Speechesv, ol. 2. p. 19. such is the concurring voice of Edmund Burke, George Canning, and Henry Brougham. Thus, by testimony as well as by reason, in harmony with the national pledge, we are admenished that this work must be done by the Nation. Do not say that you have not the power, when the will only is needed. It is the part of a good judge to amplify his jurisdiction. Bonijudicis ext ampliare jurisdiction em. such is an approved maxim of the law handed down to us from early days. Kindred in character are other max ims which enjoin the duty ofinclining always in favor of Liberty to the extent of catching at any thing, even a twine thread, by which to save it. But on this occasion the good Congressnced not amplify its jurisdiction. Enough if it enforces what plainly exists. It need not catch at any twine thread to save Liberty. The great cables of the Constitution with mighty anchors are at command. Sir, the freedman must be protected, and not sacrificed. You can do it, but only in one way. Paperwill not do it. Parchment will not do it. Compromise will not do it. Give to him the strength which comes from the fullness of citizenship and he will then be protected. Do not hesitate. Follow principles. They are like those divine premises which, when properly under stood and up lied, will answer eve case of difficulty or distrcss, and as in the pilgrims proas, “will open any lock in Doubting Caste.” Have faith. difficulties disappear before the earnest man. To the boatman who said it was impossible to brave the storm that was rsgin, William Tell, full of patriotic purpose, crie out, “ I know not whether it be possible, but I know that it must be attempted" and the deliverer reached his destination. the same courage is needed now. The attempt at least must be made and who can say that it will fail? On its side will be Providence, the prayers of good men, nature in her manifold attributes, and the awakened judgment of the civilized world. The time has passed when the Spirit of Caste can continue to bear sway. Soc to it, Senators, that this Spirit has no foot hold in the Constitution of our country. To this duty I summon you now by evertion of statesmanship, for the sake oblilga of the e public and for your own sakes. To the spirit of Caste answer back in the spirit of that C ris tian truth which you have been taught. Recall the precious words of the early English writer, who, describing “the good sea captain, ” tells us that he “counts the image of God neverthe less his image cut in ebony as if done in ivory.” The good statesman must be like the good sea ca tsin. His ship is the State which he keeps as e on its track. He, too, must see the image of God in all his fellow men, and, in the discharge of his responsible duties, must set his face orever against any recognition of Inequality in Human Rights. Other things you may do; but this on must not do.