Mr. KASSON. Perhaps the Gentfrom Pennsylvania did not hear or read the speech of his colleague from Philadelphia, [Mr. KELLEY] who is the father of this bill, an in which he raised thatpoint of debate; Itherefore deem it proper to rely to that portion of his speech. ow, sir, what is the proposition before the House today? It is, shall the black people of the DistCol be permitted to participate in the future elections of the District as fully as the white population under existing laws are allowed to participate in them? This raises the question touching the proper foundation of the right of suffrage. If it be a natural right, if it be one of those rights like personal liberty, like the right of exercisin personal conscience, then, sir, I am for it as heartily as I was for the amendment to the constitution, which secured the right of personal liberty to every human being in the U.S. If on the other and the right of suffrage is a conventional right; is one that is right ully more or less restricted as the laws of the land may prescribe; if every citizen has not the right to demand a vote, then of course, it is a matter for the discretion of this House how many persons shall be authorized to exercise it. Now, sir, in the history of this country we have excluded certain classes generally from taking part in the election. We have excluded the Chinese we have excluded all pagans, we have excluded Indians as a general rule, we have excluded white males under 21 years of age, we have excluded women of all ages irrespective of intelligence or tax paying. We have thus actually, through the whole history of this country, recognized certain qualifications as necessary for participating in the elections by which our government is controlled, and I may add that in most of the States the black population has been wholly or partially excluded. I do not know of anyone State in which, irrespective of qualification, they are permitted to vote. In my own State we have had the word “white” in our constitution, and we have been considering the question of allowing the black man to vote. The party to which I belong in the State of Iowa passed this resolution at their last convention: “Rnolved. That with proper safeguards for the security of the ballotbox. the elective franchise shal be based upon loyalty to the constitution and Union, recognizmir and nilirmimz the equality of all men before the law: therefore we are in fnyor of amendin the constitution of our State by striking out the we white in the article of suffrage.” and, sir, although we had nearly 40,000 majority the previous year, we had only about 16,000 this year in the State. There was a very great difference of opinion in the State touching the propriety of to introduction of this resolution. Some counties in their conventions declared that it was but a proposition to submit to the vote of the people, which it would require 3 years to give effect to, whether or not they should be aIlowed to vote; in other words, whether the word “white” should be stricken out; and they postponed, in many instances, the consideration of the question and adhered to the ticket. The State has not yet pronounced on the subject, and I have in my hand a late copy of the State party organ, which uses the following language, the Legislature being in session, and the subject being before them for the 1st step of action. After claiming that the proposition should be early submitted to the people, the editor says: “Intelligence should be the chief basis of suffrage, as it is the only guarantee of perpetuity in a free Government and we trust that Iowa may be the 1st among the States of the Northwest to ingraft this principle in its fundamental law.” That declaration is made by one of the most radical newspapers in Iowa the organ of the party in the State.