Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio. I move that the pending resolution and amendments be recommitted to the ComReconstruction, with instructions to report an amendment to the constitution which shall, 1st, apportion direct taxes among the States according to property in each; and which shall, 2nd, apportion Representatives among the States on the basis of adult male voters who may be citizens of the U.S. Mr. Speaker, since the adjournmentlast evening I have devoted some time to the consideration of the question now before the House. The constitution provides that “Representatives and direct taxes shall be npportioned among the several States which may be includedwithin this Union, accordingtotheirrespective numbers. which shall bedeterminedbyadding to the whole number of free persons, including those be und to service for a term o years and excludin Indians not taxed, 3/5ths of all other persons. Conslilution. art. 1. sec. 2. It is well understood that this clause was the result of a compromise among the framers of the constitution, and like most compromises, did not settle any fundamental and unalterable principle of free government. It undertook to regulate 2 subjects, the basis of representstion in Congress and the Electoral colego, and the distribution of direct taxes among the States. But the scheme of imposing direct taxes on population rather than on property; of requiring many persons with litt e property to pay a greater amount of taxes than fewer persons with more property, has been cknowledged so universall odious and unust Ithatthis mode of taxation. as rarely ever been adopted by the nation, and perhaps not at all by the States. There never has been a time when the basis of representation has not been a subject of just complaint among the people of the free States. A brief examination will readily show that it was wrong in principle, and unjust in practical results. The rule which gave representation to 3/5ths of the slave population, (for the “3/5ths of all other persons”mentioned in the constitution means slaves) was urely arbi trary, the result of compromise, an not of fixed political principles, or of any standard of abstract justice. If slavery was a just element of political strength, I know of no rule which could properly divide it into “fractional quantities.” If it was not a just element of political strength I know of no rule which could properly give it “fractional power.” But the basis of representation was unjust in practical results, because it gave to chattel slavery political power a power accorded to no other species of property thus making what the slave States regarded as wealth an e ement of political strengt. Now let us see how this has operated. I find these facts stated: "In 17 9tohe ratio of representation was one Representativeto every 33,000 of the Representative population. Now it is one Representative for every one undre dand 27,000. 0n the 23d of May, 18of)t, heprinciplewas established, for the 1st time, of limiting the number of Representatives and thus relieving Congressof the neces of hiring every tenyears thonumber of members of which the House should consist. This law established the number of Representativesat 233, who were to be apportioned among the several States. respectively by dividing the number of the rercsentative po uiation of th o Statesby the number, and the pronotofthisdivision wasto be the ratio of representation. In theslaveStates 3/5ths of the slaves were added to the white class to preserve the balance of powoi. This law of May. 1850, waschangedafterthe apportionment by another law, passedon March 4. 1862. This increased the number of representativesto 241, spawn "of the States gaining one member y the c ango. This representation was apportioned among the several States having free and slave population thus: RepreFreewhito Slnvo States. spnta population. Alabama. MMiisnsniesssioptpai. ". Missouri. NewHampshire. NewJersey NewYork QvlwihwFNini" Orego Pennsylvania RhdIsland SCarolina. Tennessee. Texas. Yprniont" irgiiiia. Wisconsin. Total. the free colored population of the States in 1:00 was 476,562 making a total of 31, 149, 905. From this it will be seen that NewHampshire, witha white population of 325 579, has but 3 Representatives, while Louisiana, with a white population of 857, 629, had 5. California, with a white population of 323, 177, has but 3 Representatives, while Mississippi, with a similar population of 353, 901, had ve. In SCarolina 72, 847 white persons had one Representative, while the ratio of representation is one for 127,000 persons. Under this mode of apportionment the late slave States had 18 Representatives by the census of 1860 more than their just share, if based on free population. The whole political power of Ohio was counterbalanced by slave representation. It was equal to 2/3rds of all the representation from NewEngland. In SCarolina 14, 569 votes carried as much political power as 26, 400 votes in the free States. I do not now complain that our fathers, in a spirit of compromise more liberal than just, made these concessions to slavery. I do not stand here to doubt their patriotism or impugn their wisdom. For 3 uarters of a century the people of the North did faithfully abide by the bond as written by the framers of the constitution. They did more. Although the constitution went into effect, as all concurrent history proves, with the expectation that slavery would soon die out forever, and was by no means to be extended, yet it was permitted to curse new acquisitions of territory and States. greater in extent than all the original 13, and paripassu, the political power of slavery expand!!! grew with e national growth and strengnthen with its strength. Bnt finally slavery, mind in, its purpose of imperial dominion, appealed to the arbitrament of the sword to destroy the nation, and in turn itself was overthrown and now with universal freedom, in name at least, the constitution and the pee 10 of the rebel States present new aspects an new elements of political strength. In apportionin Representatives in Congress and the power of the States in the Electoral college, we cease to count 3/5ths of the late slave population and count it all as the constitution now stands. Since slavery is abolished the constitution has effect precisely as though it read “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportionedamon the several States which may be included within this nion, aecordin to their respectivenumbers 5Of population, inclu in: all hot white and black. except Indians not taxed.” The effect of this will be, so soon aslawful State governments are created in the rebel States, to argely increase their representation in congress and the Electoral College. The slave population by the census of 1860 was 3, 950, 531. 3 fitt s of this, or 2, 870, 318, has heretofore entered into the basis of representation. N ow, the additional 1,580, 213, is to be added to that basis. This will give ten additional Representatives to the late slave States, in all 28 more than their just proportion upon a basis excluding the late slaves. But the starth ng injustice of the existingmode of apportionment will be a arent h some additional considerations, which I find t us stated: “For example, let us coniparesomeof the southern Stateswith thoseof the northern Stateswhich come somewhat near themin population on the basis of the last census. If we take the wholepopulation of each State as the number which measures the right of Representation, and supposethat the white men aloneof the southern States(libl the votesof the states, a brief calculation will showthat every 100 of the white inhabitantsof SCarolina will have ns much power throng their Representatives as 240 of the peopleof Iowa 100 whitemenin Misstsmwu Will equal 223 men inWisconsin; 100 white men in Louisiapa wrll equal 198 in Maine; 100 white men in Alabamawill equal 183 inConnecticut: and 100 whito men in Alabama and Louisiana together will equal 189 in In inna. It is therefore apparentthat if. as the constitution requires, the colored men of the South are all countedin tomeasurethe right of representation and are then all distranchised, this must operatea proportional disfranohisement of the peopleof the North and West. How long can it be believed that this in equality wrll be endured? On what right or reason doesit rest? If it bethnt the colored raceof the South are all wholly disfranchised becausewholly unfit for the right of suffrage is it also true that the white voters of SCarolina are about 2 and a ha times better tilted to exercise this right wisely and patriotieally than the people of Iowa?" If this injustice can be tolerated and perpet uated, and the late rebel States shall soon be admitted to representation, they will enjoy as thereward of their perfidy and treason increased political power. his will reward traitors with a liberal premium for treason. Iam unwilling that this gross inequality should continue, so that when the Representatives of SCarolina return to these Halls, each rebel voter by them represented will enjoy a political power morethan double that of every loyal voter of my district. Sir, I would not allow this additional number of ten Representatives to the late slave States as the rewprd of treason. But I would strike down the political power heretofore wielded by the 18 Representatives of slavery, and make the political power of every voter precisely equal all over the and h or one, I demand that the constitution shall be so amended as that representation shall be based on citizens of the U.S. who may be male adult voters. I may bepermitted to say a few words by way of explanation beforeI present some of the reasons which seem to me to justify the proposed amendment. It does not repose to extend the right of suffrage to or with old it from any class 01 people. t does not propose to settle or interfere with the controverted question whether congress, under the constitution as it now is, may eter mine who can or cannot vote for It does not. propose to disturbRepresentatives. e commonly received construction of the Constitutiop which leaves to the States the right to determine who shall or shall not be voters. It does not propose to disturb or impair the undoubted power of Congress and the President to determine whether a State government is republican in form, and if not to interpose and guaranty such government. All these questions are left untouched, to be decided when other amendments or laws involving them may be proposed for our action. t does propose, what no other amendment submitted to this House can effect, that one voter in SCarolina shall have precisel as much political power as one voter in Ohio, or all purposes of representation in Congress. It has the crowning merit of a perfect representative democracy, that for all purposes of representation every voter in this broa land of ours is equally potential in its councils. I have not sto ped to inquire as the ground of my opinions iow it won d for the present affect this State or that, but I have read in it that ideal of perfection in government which makes every voter equal in power. I will read it as introduced by my distinguished colleague, [Mr. Scarmen] It is in these words: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union according to the number of male citiiens [of the U.S.] over 21 cars of e, having the qualifications requisite for c cctorsof t ic most numerousbranch of the StateLegislature. The congress, at their 1st sessionafterthe ratification of this amendment by the required number of States shall provide by law for the actual enumeration o such voters: and such actual enumeration shall boscpn rate] made in a general censusof the population of all the States within every subsequent term of ten years. in such manner as the Congressmay by law direct. The numberof Representatives shall not exceed one for every 100,000 of actual op ulutionI but eachState shall have at least one cp Representative and now, Mr. Speaker I am free to concede that constitutional amendments should not be hastily made, and never but for adequate reasons, upon the gravest and mast mature consideration. But if ever there could be a time for making fundamental changes in our organic law and ingrafting on it irreversible guarantees, that time is now. The events of the ast 4 years demonstrate their necessity, and, our security for the future imperatively demands them at our hands. The great events which have transpired, and the altered circumstances that surround us, admenish us that we will be recreant to our trusts if we fail to inscribe justice on the constitution, and fortify it against the eneroachments of treason, so that it shall be eternal. One of the elements of our past misfortunes, and which gave power for evil to the enemies who assailed us in this tem le, was unequal and unjust representationpolitical power wielded by a dominant class, augmented y copeessions on behalf of a disfrenchised and servile race, insultingly declared almost in the very citadel of national justice as having no rights which a white man was bound to respect. By this amendment we strike down the iniquity of one class wielding political power for another, and arrogant because in the exercise ofunjust power. The 3/5ths representation of the Constitution was a concession to slavery. Slavery, the reason of the rule, having ceased, the rule itself should cease. It does cease by the terms of thel constitution, but with renewed power for evi. The constitution was not made in view of or for the condition of affairs which we now witness. When it was made the free population, without regard to color, by the laws of every State except perhaps one, enjoyed the elective franchise. lip slavery had been abolished then almost the whole free population would have been voters. But now, in every State of the South the colored race is denied all political rights. They are declared by the laws of the States to be unfit to exercise politi a1privileges. Each State enjoys the political right of deciding for itself who shall an who shall not vote. The amendment under consideration does not propose to disturb the enjoyment of that right. But it does affirm that one class of men shall not have political power on behalf of a race declared by their laws unfit to exercise it. It has been urged, that if this amendment be adopted, the States will extend the elective franchise for the purpose of gaining additional representation, and that ultimately the States wi I extend it to the colored population. But no gentleman yet has proposed to prohibit the States from the exercise of this, as the laws now stand their undoubted constitutional right. No one has suggested that the rights of the States in this respect should be abriged and if the States choose to extend the elective franchise it is nofour duty to prohibit it. If they do so, it will be because they regard it as just and safe in the hands of people capable of exercising it. If they do not, it will be because they regard the disfianchised class asunsafe depositaries of political power. If any class is unfit to be an element of political strength, it is unjust to clothe a favored class with political power on its behalf. Whatever protection it demands should be intrusted equally to all the Representatives of the people. But the chairman of the ComReconstruction [Mr. Srnvsxs] submits for our consideration, in lieu of the amendment proposed by my colleague, [Mr. SCHEXCK] a substitute in these wor s: Aaricnn. Representativesand direct taxes shall beapportionedanion the several Stateswhich maybe included within this nion accordingto their respective numbers, counting the whole n mber of persons in eachState, excluding Indiansno taxed: Provided That wheneverthe electivefranchiseshall bedenied or abridged in any State on account of race or color. all persons of such race or color shall be excluded from the basis of representation. The substantial differences are these: one makes citizens who are adult male voters the basis of representation, the other the whole population except Indians not taxed, and persons of that race or color which may not enjoy equal or impartial suffrage. Now, if in each State the women, children, and unnaturalized foreigners bore exactly the same relative proportion to voters, then there would be no practical difference in the result of the 2 proposed amendments. The distinished Gentfrom Maine [Mr BLAIXJ.] insists that women, children, and unnaturalized foreigners shall, with the voters of their class, form the basis of representation, mainly because in some States the female population is relatively in excess of the male, and especially in NewEngland, whose male population is reduced by emigration to the West. He fears a reduction in the political power of NewEngland; but I think it has been demonstrated that his facts are somewhat fancies, and his figures are still more fictitious. So, at least, I understand the Gentfrom NewYork, [Mr. CONKLISG] whose elaborate investigations given to this House are full of interest and value. If no change shall be made in the Constitution, the political power of all the loyal States will be relatively diminished by the increased power now to be given to the late slave States. Either of the 2 proposed amendments will increase the relative representation and power of the loyal States; but the amendment of the chairman of the ComReconstruction, [Mr. STEVENS] while it is preferable to the constitution as it now is, perpetuates the very political evil which to some extent it remedies. t gives representation to women, children, and unnaturalized foreigners, all declared by the laws of the States unsafe or unnecessary depositaries of political power. It disregards the fundamental idea of all just representation that every voter should be equal in political power all over the Union. If in any State there shall be a large influx of unnaturalized foreigners, as in the great cities of the East, that State will gain additional Representation therefrom. If in any State there shall be an excess of women or children or both, these will give additional representation and political power. The dominions of Brigham Young, if incor porated in the Union, would become the ara ise of politicians, rich in unequal political lees. I405 power. because of the multitudine ns wives and innumerable children of the Saints of Utah.” With what grace can we say to the South, You shall have no representation forfreedmen not enfranchised, ” while we insist upon representation for aliens and women an chilcren not enfranchised? If the representation of unenfranchised freedmen may 9 safely intrusted to all the representatives of the nation, may not that of aliens and women and children be equally so? If it is unjust to give local political power to the South by reason of her unenfranchised freedmen, is it not unfair to give similar power by reason of unenfranchised aliens elsew ere? I know it may be said that ne reason for denying representation on beha fofuneiifranchised freedmen is to encourage the South to educate and qualify all her people not only to become useful citizens but competent voters. This is but one element of consideration with those who urge it. The reason which conclusively justifies it is that a people declared by law, if in fact unprepared for suffrage, should not be represented as an element of power by those interested in forever keeping them unpreared. But children never can be unlified an competent deositariesofpolitica power, and there ore should not enter into the basis of representation. It never has been deemednecessary for the protection of females that they should be regarded as an element of political power, and hence they should not be an element of Representation. If the necessity shall come, or if our sense of justice should so change as to enfranchise adult females, it will be time enough then to make them a basis of representation. While my own State and the Vest generally would certainly gain political power by the amendment of my colleague, [LIL Sonnscuj I do not for that reason support it. If gentlemen will overlook fundamental principles of right, and be guided by considerations of tem porary expediency or power, constitutional amendments can neverbe made. Sonic concessions of opinion must be made from the East as well as from the West to insure success. It is said to be one of our political maxims that there should be no taxation without representation. But it is equally an unalterable maxim of political justice that representation should not be based on property but people, and that taxation is controlled not by the weight of propertg, but by people wielding political power. but women, children, and general y aliens, wield no political power, and are therefore not elements to be considered in representation, except as every Representative wields power for a 1 of these unenfranchised classes. While I indorse the amendment of in colleague [Mr. Scuasen] so far as it goes, may suggest a verbal alteration to make it more certain. After the word “ citizens" it should contain the words “of the U.S. ” and now, while we are amending the constitution in this respect, it will be well if it be well done not only in regard to representation but in relation to direct taxes. The constitution now apportions direct taxes among the States not according to property but on the basis of population. This, too, was the result of a compromise. The South demanded representation for slavery, and the North in turn demanded that direct taxes should follow the same basis. The South enjoyed the benefit of slave representation, but managed to escape taxation based on slavery. The reason for thusingrafting on the constitution this unequal mode of apportioning taxes among the States has now passed away, and with it e mode itself shoal pass away. Both the amendments under consideration proposeto leave this feature of the Constitution unchanged. Direct taxes include a tax on persons and a tax on lands. A tax upon population is alike odious and unjust, an the possibility ofimposing itshould be speedily and forever pprohibitedby the constitution. Yet, as the constitution now stands, such tax may be apportioned among the several States. I do not suppose it probable that any direct tax will be levied or apportioned among the several Statescertain] not now. But we are making constitutional law not merely for today but for all time. If it is of importance to preserve or have a constitutional provision on the subject, it should be based on principles of justice. All will agree that property, not population, is the true basis of taxation. Let us protect industry, guard labor from taxation, impose no burdens on the skill or labor of the artisan, the mechanic, the producer, which can possibly be avoided, for these cripple the energies and restrain the prosperity of the people. et the capital, the wealth of the nation, hear the burdens of taxation, distributed in equal and just proportions, and the heavy debt of the war Will be removed in less than a generation.