Mr. BA KER. Mr. Speaker, I certainly am exceedingly anxious to have an amendment adopted at the earliest practicable moment achieving the general purpose of supplying a more just basis of representation, and Twas at one time favorably struck with the proposed amendment. But upon more critical examination I raise upon it the following points of objection, to which I beg to draw the attention and candid consideration of the House: The proposed amendment fails, as I conceive, in its very terms, to adequately effect its own object; that is, it fails to provide, and by apt words to secure, arepresentation in this Government which shall properly correspond with the measure of suffrage upon which it rests. To exPlain this, let it be observed that under the operation of this amendment 3 contingencies may happen: 1st, a given State may enact universal suffrage, and in that case the o eration of the amendment would be all right; 2nd, such State might deny or abridge the elective franchise on account of race or color, and in that case the amendment would operate to exclude from the basis of representation all persons of such race or color, and so effect the and proposed by the committee; but 3rd, such State might deny or abridge the elective franchise, not on account of race or color, but on some other accountas, for instance, property or intelligenceand in such case though very large numbers of her people might be disranc ised, yet under the operation of this amendment, they would all be counted in the basis of her representation, which would be highly unjust in itself, besides tentially leaving the identical obnoxious thin standing in our representative system which it is the object of this amendment to exti atel The object we have in view is to deprive a State of the privilege of disfranchising any portion of her citizens and at the same time having them counted in the basis of her representation and I humbly submit that this object is not accomplished by leaving it to a State, as this proposed amendment does, to disfranchise whom she pleases and to any extent she leases provided only it be not for race or color, and then allowing the persons so disfranchised to be counted in the basis of her representation. That I am right in this interpretation of the proposed amendment is apparent on inspection of its language. The primary basis of representation which it provides is the whole number of personsin cac State, which Iclearly think is the right primary basis; and the only limitations it imposes are, 1st, untaxed Indians, and 2ndly, all persons of any race or color who may be discriminated against as to suffrage on account of race or color. There is no provision whatever covering any other sort of iscrimination; fromwhich it clear] results, as I have stated, that large numbers of persons might be excluded from the franchise, and yet be countedin the basis of representation if only they were excluded on some other account than color or race. This, it appears to me, is too narrow a foundation to rest the proposed rem edy upon. For, in my opinion, there are other grounds upon which men may be disfranchised, which are quite as odious and quite asdangerous to liberty as disfranchisement on account of race or color. A property qualificationisone, the whole strength of which was tested by Frank lins question. A man owns an pass today and he votes. Tonight his pass dies, and tomor row he cannot vote.” Now, ” said Franklin, “who has the votethe man or the ass?" Atall events, the right to the vote died with the ass. I am reluctant to indorse an amendment to the constitution, framed in this do of growing liberty, framed by the party o progress, intended to make representative power in this Government correspond with the quantum of political justice on which it is based, and yet which leaves any State in the Union perfectly free to narrow her suffrage to any extent she pleases, imposing (proprietary and other disqualifying tests, an stillstrengthening her aris tocratic power in the Government by the full count o her disfranchised people, provided only she steers clear of a test based on race or color. Nor am I to be answered that such would not probably be the practical fact, though the power existed tomake it so. In framing an amendment of our fundamental law, which may exist for centuries without a change, we should be exceedingly modest in undertakingto prejudge that power left to a State to very materially nar row its suffrage, and yet retain its undiminished weight in the system, would never be exercised by such State. The wiser course, it appears to me, now we have taken it in hand, is to put the right thing in the constitution, so wording it that no considerable body of the people in any State can be disfranchised, no matter on what account, and still be numbered in her basis of representation. Then the mischief we are aim in g at will be renamednot scotchedremoved with the glad sanction of the people; and the guarantee of its removal will be in the terms of the constitution itself, and not left to the for tuitons pleasure of particular States, free to go on, in great measure, as heretofore, excluding their people from suffrage and yet having them counted in the basis of the ir representation. The fundamental idea is to leave the primary basis of representation where it was placed by our fathers, the whole body of the people, then excluding from the count according to disfrnn. chisement by the States, no matter whether for race or color or other cause. No State should reserve in her basis of representation persons disfranchised and not represented, no matter on what round she so excludes them.