Mr. FESSENDEN. I do not know that it is necessary that the Senator should reply. I was trying to convince him. If I fail, it is mymis fortune. I understand precisely what the senators difficulty is, and when I addressed myself to him, it was not so much with a view to a reply on his art as to see if I could not remove any aloubts that might remain in the Senators mill. The Senfrom Massachusetts makes several points against this proposition, to which my answer is the same. Tiis 1st point is, that it recognizes “ the idea ofiuequality of rights founded on race or color.” I deny in toto the correctness, or even the plausibility to a man of sense, of any point that he has raised on the subject. There is not one of them that is ten able; and more than that, there is not one of them but what is just as tenable against the proposition he is in favor of to found representation on voters as this. What lawyer in the world ever heard that a denial is an admission? What lawyer ever heard that a pen alty is a permission? By this proposition we say simpy this: “If in the exercise of the power that you have under the Constitution you make an inequality of rights, than you are to suffer such and such consequences.” What sane man could ever pretend that that was saying. “ Make an inequality of rights and we wrll sanction it?” We do not den, nobody can deny that the power may be t as exercised. What we say by this amendment is, “If you attempt to exercise it in this wrongful way, you create an inequality of rights, and if you do create an inequality of rights" not we, but you “ if you undertake to do it under the power which exists in the Constitution, then the consequence follows that you are punished by a loss of representation." That is all that is in it. Does not the same thing follow with reference to the proposition to base representation upon voters? Suppose we put it upon voters; what is the consequence? IWhathave they got to do? If the O not. admit colored men to vote, they lose their representation. If they do admit them to vote, they have the repre sentation. The effect is precisely the same in both cases, only in one case we at it in a different form, and say directly, “ you do make. this distinction, found in it on population, then this consequence will follow." So it is with reference to the Senators 2nd point. The 2nd point secms introduced not so much with reference to this orment as with reference to the speech the ffdnorablo Senfrom Massachusetts mode the other day. What is it? That it is authorizing and sanctioning taxation without representation. That was 1st adduced in the very able and learned argument of the Senator made some days ago, to show that itwas not consisteut with a RFG as he under stood it. It is now introduced here for another purpose, and the Senator now undertakes to controvert the remark that was made then, that this original proposition that taxation without representation was tyranny, was intended and confined to communities and not to individuals. I think he has failed to make it evident. He has attempted to do so by quoting certain loose expressions from the different writers, I was about to say, of ancient and modern times. He goes back to Lord Coke and John Locke. I should like to know how many free men voted in England at the time Lord Coke laid down the principle, as he did in strong terms, that the liberties of England depended upon the right of this free men to vote? and yet he sustained the constitution of England as n free constitution. He thought that the liberties of Englan were protected by the right of suffrage; and who voted? I have not time to ascertain precisely what the qualification was at that time, but I presume e Senator will admit it was only the men of rank and men of fortune, and some burcsses in the cities, and perhaps the owners of ar e farms. The great mass of the population did not vote then; and it Was not much better in the days of John Locke. Were they contending that the constitution of England was not a free constitution? They dealt with general principles, subject to such limitations as the good of the community might seem to require. So it was with Otis, even. Why, sir, at the very time that he made his declaration, the constitution of Massachusetts fixed a property qualification for voters. Did he complain of it? Did he say it was not a RFG? Did he de mand the right in any convention of Massachusetts, or anywhere, that every free man of the a e of 21 years should vote? Not at a l. What is the constitution of Massachusetts today? It contains an educational qualification. A man must read or he cannot vote. Is not that an exclusion of a class? How does that agree with the quotation of one single sentence from Otis, that every man of 21 cars and sound mind should he allowed the allot? Is it so in Massachusetts today? Not at all. Is there not a class exclusion I think it a wise one in Massachusetts? In every state there are more or less men who cannot read, and those men who cannot read are always to be found. One may learn, and he then comes within the class of voters; another may not, and he may stay in the excluded class for his life. All of the very writers cited by the honorable Senator lived under Governments and a proved and sustained Governments which did not allow the right of sudrageto ever man 21 years of age of sound min, and there is not a Government on the face of the (eiarth that does it today or can be expected to o it. I have no time to deal with the Senators argument on that subject at anyleugth, nor have learning enough to deal with it at any length, for I have not looked into the books on the subject, but the question is precisely what I have stated it to e, and the Senator has not proved one word, in my judgment, to the contrary, that the right contended for on the principle of representation with taxation was the right of the community, leaving every communit to settle for itself who should exercise the right of suffrage. The Senator has confounded the right of representation with thu right of suffrage. He does not draw the distinctlon between the two. A community may ever will carry it so far. presented, every man in the community may be represented, and every woman and child in the community may be represented, and yet not every man 21 years of age be a voter. Nobody ever contended until this day that it was so or could be so. No community has ever carried it so far, and I doubt if any community There will always be numbers, more or less, of free men who ought not to exercise the right of suffrage. In saying this I do not mean to differ with the Senator upon his great ground that it would be mst iniquitous and most outrageous to exclude all the colored men of the U.S. because they are colored men. I say as strongly as he does, that they have the right and ought to have the right of suffrage as well as the whites. I have no sort of hesitation upon that subject; but I do say that even the Senator himself is not in favor at the present dav of admitting them to universal suffrage. e is in favor, as I am, of abolishing the distinction that exists between men of dillerent classes or different colors; but he goes, if I understand him, no further than that. It is of no use, then. to contend that we cannot have a RFG unless every man of the age of 21 years is allowed to vote. That is out of the question. It never has been so, and I doubt if it ever will be so, until very nearly the time of the millennium. It is still more unjust to say the because we propoae an amendment to the constitution which simply provides that if that abuse does existit sha l be punished, therefore we propose to tax without allowing representation. The Senator proposes to base representation upon voters. Suppose a State excludes a large portion of its population and sends Representatives here, would the Senator omit to tax them for their own fault? If they choose to exclude the blacks or any other class from voting and thus cut down their representation and cut down their number of votes, does the Senator say he would not tax them? It is their fault. They are still represented although they do not vote. What we say is this: “We tax you as we tax all communities; you are Represented as all communities are represented, accordin to your population; but if in framing your law in relation to suffrage, you choose to cut out a large portion of your population, whom you ought not to cut out, they shall not be counted, but on and they shall be taxed. Why not?The fault is not in us. We do not propose to restrict the suffrage. I We propose to give the power to put it. on the largest basis of poulation, counting every man, woman, and child; but if you, the State, choose to cut out 1/2 of your population and say they are not fit to exercise the right of suffrage. you shall lose your representation. but you shall not escape from hearing your share of the burdens of this Government.” That is what we say and all we say in this resolution. That is the 2nd point of the Senator. There are a great many of them, and perhaps I am wrong in attempting to consider them in detail. They are al of the same character, all dependin upon the same misapprehension of the amendment of the Constitution that is now before the Senate. The 3rd point, and the Senator adopts a very imposing style of speech, is this: " Proceedingwith the dissectionof this proposition, I new exhibit it as a new form of concessionto State rights." Why? The State right now, under the constitution, is to make just such regulations as it chooses with regard to its qualification for voters. That is the present State right, which nobody can dispute, because it has been admitte from the foundation of the Government. What do we say? If you exclude a portion of your people from exercising that rioht, we cut you off from representation. Is that a concession to State rights? It is the very reverse of the honorable Senators proposition, if I know it; and therefore I beg cave to say, with all respect, that the heterogeneous character of this opposition on all sides of the Senate, “black spirits and white, blue spirits and gray, ” some figlding it on one ground, and some on precisely the opposite ground, is a most singular spectacle; Ftrust it will be properly appreciated. A concession to State rights, when you tell them, “lfyou exercise a power which you can exercise under the constitution. we cut you off from representation!" lii what fantastic dream was such an idea conceived? It is precisely the opposite, and every man must see it; and the leading ground on which the honorable Senfrom Maryland [Mr. Jouxsos] opposed the resolution was that it attacked State rights. Proceeding with the is section of the proposition, the Senator says it is“a constitutional recognition of an oligarehy, aristocracy, caste, and monopoly, founded on color.” If the brain of the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts should ever chance to be dissected, I think those words would be found very stronvly impressed on it. They seem to haunt the onor able Senator. Iflie can find them in this resolution. he can find them in the Lords Prayer, orthe Westminster Assembly Catechism. When we say distinctly to a State, “ If you attempt to make a distinction in political rights on account of color, we will punish you by depriving you of representation proianto, the Senator says that is recognizing an oligarchy and aristoc racy founded on color! Why, sir, there is not a man of ordinary intellect not blinded by passion or prejudice, not misled by preconceived opinions; nay, not a woman, who isequal to a man in intellect I know, although judge Par sons thought she had not discretion enough to vote, or one of our children of decent years at school in NewEngland, who would not say that it is precisely opposite; and the same remark applies to every point the honorable Senator has made. Again, he says, that it is “petrifying in the Constitution the wretched pretenson of a white mans Government.” Iwill omit the comment upon that. It is too palpable. Then the Senator objects to this proposition as “tying the hands of Congress in its interpretation of a republican government.” How? His next proposition is, and I will consider them together, that “ it is tying the hands of Congress in completing and consummating the abolition of slavery.” I will not discuss the question; it is notnecessary that I should discuss no question, for my purposehere, whether Congress has this power of legislation or not; whciher it has it under the clause guarantying aRFG or not. Opinions differ upon that subject; but for the sake of the argument, admit that Congress has the power, how in the world does this proposition deprive them of any power they have. What is the expression? “ Ifyou undertake to deny suffrage on account of race or color you shall not have representation for that race.” It is a denial, a bar. Suppose they do, they do not get the representation if this insses. suppose Congress has the power to ccide that the colored ieople shall vote, does this give it away? oes this diminish it? If it exists in the Constitution today, is Congress deprived of the power on account of this prohibition 2 Isit affected in the slightest possible degree in any way? Every man must see that it is not. If the power exists, which my honorable friendfrom I line is contends does exist, Congress has the power to legislate and ought to legislate. If this amendment of the Constitution is adopted, does he find anything in it which prohibits Convrcss from legislating under that clause? If there was a permission in it, if it read in this way, “provied that any State or every State shall have the power to exclude from the ballot any portion of its people that it sees fit, and those so excluded shal not be counted in representation, ” that, I grant you, would give the power.