Mr. CONKLING. Any suggestion from the Gentfrom Ohio is always worthy of respect. He says the constitution does contain one guaranty, at least, against such a contin ency as he points to; and the whole stren of Elie argument is this: because the amendment 1866. 359. 1 4 says whenever an State shall deny or abridge the elective franc ise on account of race and color, an implication is suggested m which there is danger. If there is an implication, and ifthere is a recognition, or even an authorization such as the gentleman supposes, do we not see, at least, that nothing more is suggested than has always been permitted with universal acquiescence by the courts and the nation? The right to exclude class has been construed into the constitution or in spite of the constitution already, and all the restraintwe now have would remain, I think. Toretnrn to my argument, the pending proposition commends itself, it is thought, for many reasons. 1st. It provides for representation coex tensive with taxation. I say it provides for this; it does not certainly secure it, but it enables every State to secure it. It does not, therefore, as the Gentfrom NewJersey [Mr. ROGERS] insists, violate the rule that representation should go with taxation. If a race in any State is kept unfit to vote, and fit only to drudge, the wealth created by its work ought to be taxed. Those who profit by such a system, or such a condition of things, ought to be taxed for it. Let them build churches and schoolhouses, and found newspapers, as NewYork and other States have done, and educate their people till they are fit to vote. “Fair day, ” “A fair days wages for a fair days work, ” “Live and let live ”these mottoes, if blazoned over the institutions of a State, will insure it against being cursed for any length of time with inhabitants so worthless that they are fit only for beasts of burden. I have said that the amendment provides for representation going hand in ban with taxation. That is its 1st feature. 2nd. It brings into the basis both sexes and all ages, and so it counteracts and avoids, as far as possible, the casual and geographical ine uulities of population. ird. It puts every State on an equal foot brain the requirement prescribed. earth. It leaves every State unfettered to enumerate all its people for representation or not justasitpleases. Thus every State has the sole control, free from all interference, of its own interests and concerns. No other State, nor the General Government, can molest the people of any State on the subject, or even in mm into their acts or theirreasons, butallthe Stateshave ualrights. If NewYork chooses to count her lack poulation as political persons, she can do so. I she does not choose to do so the matter is her own, and her right cannot be challenged. So of SCarolina. But SCarolina shall not say, “True, we have less than 300,000 persons in this State, politically speaking, yet we will have in governing the country the power of 700,000 persons.” The amendment is common to all States and equal for all; its operation will of course be practically only in the South. Nonorthern State wdl ose by it, whether the southern States extend suffrage to blacks or not. Even NewYork, in her great population, has so few blacks that she could exc u e them all from enumeration and it would make no difference in her representation. f the amendment is adopted, and sutirage remains confined as it is now, taking the census of 1860 as the foundation of the calculation, and the number of Representatives as it then stood, the gains and losses would be these: Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, NewJersey, and Maine, would gain one representative each and NewYork would gain thrce; Alabama, kentucky, NCarolina, SCarolina, and Tennessee, would each lose one; Georgia, Louisiana, and Virginia would each lose 2, and MississipIpi would lose 3. t has been insisted that “citizens of the U.S.” and not “ persons" should be the basis of representation and apportionment. These words were in the amendment as I originally drew it and introduced it, but my own judment was that it should be “persons, ” and to t listhe committee assented. There are several answers to the argument in favor of “citizens” rather than “ persons.” The present constitution is, and always was, opposed to this suggestion.” Persons, ” and not. citizens, ” have always constituted the basis. Again, it would narrow the basis of taxation and cause considerable inequalities in this respect, because the number of aliens in some States is very large, and growing larger now, when emigrants reach our shores at the rate of more than a State a year. Again, many of the large States now hold their representation in part by reason of their aliens, and the Legislatures and people of these States are to pass upon the amendment. It must be made acceptable to them. For these reasons the committee has adhered to the constitution as it is, proposing to add to it only so much as is necessary to meet the point aime at I have thus, Mr. Speaker, endeavored to maintain a reposition to which I have given some thong t, not, however, with a view to speaking upon it until within a few hours. I have passed over somethings which might easily be said in its favor. far as many persons think it ought, it oes further than many persons will admit it should. I believe it a wise and salutary provision, a solid block needed in the foundation of our structure, for the sake of the white man and the black. Those who lend a helping hand to put it in its place will, I think, deserve well of their country. He who does most toward in cororating it in the constitution may hope to be heir to the praise once not well bestowed, Urbem layteritiam invenit, marmoriam reliquit.