Mr. JOHNSON. The immediate question before the Senate, I understand, is upon the amendment offered by the honorable member from Pennsylvania, which, if I am correctly informed, is to strike out the word “male, ” so as to give to all persons, independent of sex, the right of voting. It is, therefore, a proposition to admit to the right of suffrage all the females in the DistCol who may have the required residence and are of the required age; I am not aware that the right is given to that class anywhere in the U.S. I believe for a very short time my friendfrom NewJersey will inform me if I am correct it was more or less extended to the women in NewJersey; but, if that be an exception, it is, as far as I am informed, the only exception; and there are a variety of reasons why, as I suppose, the right has never been extended as now proposed. Ladies have duties, peculiar to themselves whether at that time we could command a two The will grow stronger in the days to come would suffrage, is destined to beeome the law in spite of all opposition and all lamentations. I am opposed, therefore, to associating with this achieved measure the question of intelligence and of stainless character ladies which cannot be discharged by anybody else; the nurture and education of their children, the demands upon them consequent upon the preservation of their household; and they are supposed to be more or less in their proper vocation when they are attending to those particular duties. But independent of that, I think if it was submitted to the ladies I mean the ladies in the true acceptation of the term of the U.S., the privilege would not only not be asked for, but would be rejected. I do not think the ladies of the U.S. would agree to enter into a canvass and to undergo what is often the degradation of seeking to vote, particularly in the cities, getting up to the polls, crowded out and crowded in. I rather think they would feel it, instead of a privilege, a dishonor. There is another reason why the right should not be extended to them, unless it is the purpose of the honorable member and of the senate to go a step further. The reason why the males are acceded the privilege, and why it was almost universal in the U.S. with reference to those of a certain age, is that they may be called upon to defend the country in time of war or in time of insurrection. I do not suppose it is pretended that the ladies should be included in the militia organization or be compelled to take up arms to defend the country. That must be done by the male sex, I hope. But I rose not so much for the purpose of expressing my own opinion, or reasoning rather upon the opinion, as to refer to a sentence or 2 in a letter written many years ago by the elder Adams to a correspondent in Massachusetts. It was proposed at that time in Massachusetts to alter the suffrage. It was then limited in that State. That limitation, it was suggested, should be taken away in whole or in part, and the correspondent to whom this letter was addressed seems to have been in favor of that change. Mr. Adams, under date of the 20th of May, 1776, writes to his correspondent, Mr. James Sullivan, a name famous in the annals of Massachusetts, and well known to the U.S., a long letter, of which I shall read only a sentence of two. It is to be found in the 9th volume of the Works of John Adams, beginning at page 875. In that letter, Mr. Adams, among other things, says: “Butletus 1st suppose that the whole community, of every, age, rank, sex, and condition, has a right to vote. This community is assembled. motion is made and carried by a majority of one voice. The minority will not agree to right this. Whence arises the of the majority to govern and the obligation of the minority to obey? “From necessity, you will say, because there can be no other rule. “But Yi exclude women? “You will say, because their delicacy renders them unfit for practice and experience innessesof life and the hardy enterprisesthe great busio of war, as well as the arduous cares of state. Besides, their attention is so much engaged with the necessary nurture of their children that nature has madethem fittest for domestic cares. And children have not judgment or will of their own. True.” And he closes the letter by saying: “Society can be governed only by general rules. Government cannot accommodate itself to every particular case as it happens, nor to the circumstances of particular persons. It must establish general comprehensive regulations for cases and persons. The only question is, which general rule will accomunodate Ine st casesand most persons. “Depend upon it, sir, it is dangerous to open so fruitful asource of controversy and altercation as would be opened by attempting to alter the o:of voters; there will be no end of it. arise; New claims will women will demand a vote: lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended t;o and every man who has not a farthing will demand an equal voice with any other in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distoo and prostrate all ranks to one common evel.” The honorable member from Ohio seems to suppose that the right should be given as a means, if I understood him, of protecting themselves and as a means of elevating them intellectually. I had supposed the theory was that the woman was protected by the man. If she is insulted she is not expected to knock the man who insults her down, or during the days of the duella to send him a challenge. She goes to her male friend, her husband or brother or acquaintance. Nature has not made her for the rough and tumble, so to speak, of life. She is intended to be delicate. She is intended to soften the asperities and roughness of the male sex. She is intended to counfort him in the days of his trial, not to participate herself actively in the contest either in the forum, in the council chamber, or on the battle field. As to her not being protected, what lady has ever said that her rights were not protected because she had not the right of suffrage? There are women, respeetable I have no doubt in point of character, moral and virtuous wo men no doubt, but they are called, and properly called, the “strong minded:”, they are in the public estimation contradistinguished from the delicate; they are men in women's garb, ready, I have no doubt, such people would be and I deem it no diInent to them; I have no doubt they are conscientious to go upon the battle field. such things have happened. They are willing to take an insult and horse whip and chastise the man who has extended the rudeness to them; but they are exceptions to the softness which is the charm of the female character. I appeal to my friendfrom NewYork, [Mr. MoRe AN,) I can speak for Baltimore and to the member from Pennsylvania, [Mr. CowAN,) who I suppose can speak for Philadelphia, would they have their wives and their daughters seeking to get up to the poll on a hotly contested election, driven with indignation at times from it, insulted, violence used to them, as is o the case, rudeness of speech sure to be indulged in Mr. WADE. I should like to know if that is the character of your city.