Mr. JOHNSON. Of course, I understand that; but Mr. Madison says. in speaking of the sense of the fathers of that day, who were per haps as wise as we are, that the true rule was that the whole number of people in a State ought to be the standard for regulating the representation of the State. The honorable member from Iowa confounds, as the honor able member from Massachusetts throughout his whole argument confounded, the right of suffrage with the right to be represented. They are altogether distinct. If they are not, the representation from Iowa ought to be dimin ished. If representation under the Constitution is to depend upon the exercise of the right of suffrage, Iowa should be confined to those whom she permits to vote, and the whole number of persons in her State, white or black, who are excluded from voting ought to be deducted from the enumeration. But it is one matter when you are considering the question of representation, and another when you are considering the question who is to vote. The negro who does not vote in Maryland, like the white woman or the infant who does not vote in Iowa, is to be protected. Protected how? By having representatives from the State who have charge of the interests of the State, of every body in the State. Nobody pretended when the constitution was formed at the negroes would not be counted independent of the right to vote. Mr. Madison, in the same number of the Federalist already cited, dealin with the propriety of counting only 3/5ths of the slaves, says: “ It is the character bestowedonthem by the laws under which they live; and it will not be denied that these are the proper criterion; because it is only under the pretext that the laws have transformed the negroes into an ectsof property. that a place is disputed them int 9 comutation of numbers; and it is admitted, that ifthe awswereto restorethe rights which have been taken away, the negroes could no longer be refused an equal share of representation wrt the other inhabitants.” Not meaning by that, that they, would be entitled to vote as the other inhabitants were entitled to vote, because they were not regulating by the constitution suffrage qualification, but the right to be represented. Iine rs, women, black or white, with or without a property qualification, all within the limits of a State, have a right to have themselves considered in ascertaining who is to represent that State, nu merically, because in proportion to the number of representatives do you increase the security of all the citizens who may be within the limits of a State. Is there any difference in principleI speak it certainly with no disrespect to the women of Iowabetween counting them and counting blacks in ascertaining the number of Representatives to which Iowa is entitled?