Mr. SCHENCK. Those were my opinions then, entirely coincident with what I think and feel now, with this difference, that then slavery existed. Then we could only guard the Territories in such manner as to exclude from them an institution which should build up more of the onequalrelative representation already provide for among the States under the Constitution. Now, sir, another time has come. Dissatisfied with the condition of things as then existing, dissatisfied with the constitutional guarantees they had, dissatisfied with the spirit exhibited by the free States, which only asked that slavery might be extended no further, but were willing to stand by the Constitution and not in fringe upon any of the rights secured locally or sectiona 1y to the people of the South, these slave States rushed into war to get something better. The consequence has been that instead of gettin further and greater securities for slavery, instead I of being able to carry out their purposes of ag gression upon freedom and upon the free States, their whole institution has come tottering down, thank God I and we are now standing here in our places to determine what provisions W0 shall make in the midst of the ruin of their favored system so as to prevent the perpetual imschiefa which it carried with it whi c in existence. Whatever was said, therefore, at that time with regard to Territories is to be said now with regard to States. There is nolonger an slavery, and there being no slavery, we ask that along with the institution which was the cause of this unequal representation the onequalrepresentation itself shall be utterly wipe out. so I need not go into any remarks in relation to the great evil we are called upon to remedy. I will butsubmit a single illustration, among many others which I was accustomed to present to my constituents and friends at home when addressing them during the past season in relation to this matter. I felt that now, as has been so properly said by the Gentfrom Illinois, [Mr. COOK, ] the “golden opportunity” had come, and that it must not be rmitte to pass without improving it noiv grit we have the power to stretch our strong band over it and ask the States to unite with us in abolishing the injustice altogether and forever. It was for this reason, with a view to prepare, as far as in my humble endeavor I mig t, the public mind for accepting a proposition of this ind, to be made in congress, or having already been made in a former congress, to be insisted upon and put in some praotical shape when we should be assembled ere again, that I presented the subject, as I said, to my people at home. Among the illustrations I say I will refer to but one to show what the great magnitude of that evil of unequal representation has been hitherto. By looking at the results of the census takcn in 1860I find, among other facts equally extraordinary illustrating this inequality, this to be true in relation to the State of Pennsylvania, as compared with portions of the South. You cannot take the State of Pennsylvania and compare her with any other one State of the South. It is not worth while now to discuss why the South. in wealth and in population, has not increased and prospered as the free States have done. It is not worthwhile to inquire now, for all this has been sufficiently discussed and reflected upon, how far the institution of slaver has been a dead weight carried by the States of e South, nor how it as prevented their growth and ros perity in wealth and population. The fact, iow ever, stands recorded, proved by our census, that when you come to compare Pennsylvania with any portion of the South in relation to the number of the white population, you are comelled to take half a doZen or more of those States in order to make that comparison, because there is no one of them that may be at in apposition to the State of Pennsylvania. ll3y the census of 1860 Pennsylvania is found to have a population of 2, 849, 266. That is, of course, "al ree population. The States of NCarolina, Sout arolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, and Louisiana, 7 of them, all taken together, have a free population of 2, 829, 785, being 20,000 less than Pennsylvania has alone. lake them, however, as if they were equal, then how do they stand? 2,800,000 people in Pennsylvania, underthe Constitution of the U.S., are represented by two votes in the Senate and by 24 votes in this House; those 7 lately slave States, with 20,000 less free and white population, under the present form of the Constitution, have their 14 Senators and 39 votes in the HoRep. Now, so far as Senators are concerned, no objection is to be taken. The Senate may be regarded as that aristocratic feature in our system which provides that one branch of the legislature shall be composed of representatives of States, thus putting the smallest States upon an equality with the latest, in order to the protection of the former. at when we come to the HoRep, where equality of representation is maintained, or ought to be, under that old system we find that a population which, in these 7 slave States, gives 39 votes to them, gives only 24 to Pennsylvania. That, then, is the evil. It might be exemplified by a comparison between SCarolina and some northern States in a still more extraordinary degree while the Constitution of the U.S. remains in its present form. This comes of counting 3/5th s of the slave population and adding it to the other population in order to make up an artificial basis of representation. Now that you count the other two 5th s, you go on to increase the representation of these 7 States and others that were slave States, without affecting in any percept ible degree the right of representation of those that, bein already free, remained also loyal in the war which has ended in the destruction of slavery. We are then agreed, I believe, that there is an evil to be remedied. There certainl can be no discussion upon that point on this si e of the House. It is true, the gentleman [Mr. Man SHALL] who has just taken his seat, representing in part the great State of Illinois, speaks of us, because we desire to remedy this evil. as a revolutionary party; he speaks of us as rushing u n experiments which are abominable in their character, and at a time when no attempt to amend the Constitution should be made. Sir, I will not stop to answer remarks of that kind. If we are a revolutionary party, we are only revolutionary in the direction of freedom and yequality; and it does not become a democrat, as the gentleman improperly calls himself, to object to us on that account. If we are revolutionary. we are revolutionary only in the interest of humanity, and we have no sympathy with rebels at the South who clung with such tenacity to everything that made them tyrants and oligarchs, depriving a large part of their population of a portion of their natural rights. If there be any sympathy with those, it is not to be found in our breasts, however revolutionary may be our character. I leave it to the gentleman and those who act and think and feel with him to say whether they have or have not conerated with any such party as that. his, then, is the evil which we desire, under the forms of the Constitution, without resort to revolution, but by the use only of the means provided by that instrument itself, to remove, by submitting to the people the question whether they will a(pply that remedy which we think it now a good time to propose to them. We find ourselves divided in opinion, not with reference to what is to be cure, but as to the best mode of making that cure. On some accounts I regret that there should be this division of opinion among those of us who are disposed to get rid of this antidemocratic inequality of representation, now that the cause for it is gone and yet, on other accounts, perhaps, it is well that this debate has come on and been continued as it has been, because in the collision of mind with mind and thought with thought, in the consideration of propositions and suggestions pro and con, we may perhaps arrive in the end at a better solution of the whole difficulty than we would otherwise reach. I undertake to say, among the many important propositions to amend the organic law of this country, there is no one which commends itself to the consideration, the judgment, and approval of the people with more force than this as a means of solving and removing all the difficulties which now agitate the pubic mind and on this account I can understand why, on this side of the House, we all may be agreed in seeking to get something, while on the other there may e objections to any amendment at all. The Gentfrom Illinois, [Mr. Coon, ] in front of me, who addressed the House, suggested that, in Opposing such a fair, equal, democratic representative amendment, gentlemen on the other side of the Chamber hold themselves liable to be suspected of being disposed to keep up this onequalshare of representation on the part of the southern States with a view to a combination which shall enable them to get the control of the Government. It is for them to reflect whether they are actu ated by such a motive or not. This much I will say, however, I am inclined to suspect that any man who is opposed to the adoption of some such amendment can only be so because he is unwilling to remove the question about the negro from the arena of politics, considering that if he does so his party capital will be taken away and his occupation gone forever. Now, sir various amendments and propositions have been made, all circling around two plans or two principles, perhaps I should say. There are a number of amendments, including one I had the honor myself to offer, which look to a cure to be arrived at by basing representation uJion suffrage. Then there is the plan presente by the select ComReconstruction, which proposes still to count the whole population as a asis of representation, providing. however, as a penalty, that that representation shall be taken away from any State in proportion to the number of citizens she may have, of any race or color, whose right to vote she denies or abridges. I like the 1st proposition the best. I will be content with anything that will effectually cure the evil; but I prefer the 1st proposition because I think it is founded upon a better principle, and will more practically accomplis the great thing desired by all of us. Thinking so, sir, at a ver early day in this session, I was one of those disposed to ask the attention of Congress to the subject, to propose in proper form the submission of the question to the Legislatures of the severalStates. On the 1st day of the session, on the 4th of December last, as soon as the House was organized, I gave notice that I would on the next, or some succeeding day, introduce a proposition to amend the Constitution. On the ensuing day I did accordingly present a JtResolution. It stands as House resolution No. I Of the session. In that I propose representation hereafter shall be based upon suffrage. I propose that representation shall be apportioned among the several States of the Union according to the number of voters having qualifications requi site for electors of the most numerous branch of the Legislature of the States where they re side, following in this the language of the constitution; these voters, however, to be further limited in their descriptions and definitions as being male citizens of the U.S. over 21 years of age. Now, whether the reposition e a good one or not, whether the limitation be such as should commend itself to the masses of our people, I will not for the present inquire. I Wlll only remark they have seemed to me to embrace as many qualifications as we ought to include when we are going to lay down a new organic law on this subject. Some gentlemen object to the word “ male, ” and would extend the franchise of voting to the females. Well, I have as much gallantry, were that alone the thing to be considered, and sentiment of admiration for that sex, as any gentleman; but I claim, by common consent of civilized countries, including our own, the whole sulyect being considered, and especially the sphere of the two sexes it has been held that the Government should be in the hands of the male part of the population and not the female. I do not regard voting as a natural right, as some gentlemen do. I think that it is expedient in framing a republican Government you should extend as far as you conveniently and properly can the right of suffrage. But after all it is not a question of natural right but one of justice and expediency how far you will go. Believing that, I have concluded to put among the other qualifications the word “male” in my amendment as discriminative at once of those qualities which an elector shall have. I have a so required that these males shall be above the age of 21 years. Now, if I believed that voting was a natural right, instead of a matter to be settled according to expediency and the best exercise of fair and just consideration of age, sex, and every thing else, among those who are called upon to take a share in the Government, I might not have fixed upon this age of 21 years, For if it be a natural right, howis it in France, for instance, a man shall not become an ad It, capable of taking part in the legal transactions of the Government, or giving his consent to cortain things, or beyond the control ofhis parents, till he is 25 years of age? For the simple reason that in every country the age of majority, not being a thing which is settled by any consideration of natural right, is to be settled according to the best exercise of discrimi nation on the subject, and the best consideration that is to be given to questions of expediency by those who framed the institutions of that Government. I take 21 years as the best age, be cause, I believe, in egery State of the Union that has always been and is now the line of limitation between the adult and the mine r. I have adopted that which has commended itself to the common discrimination, the common judgment, and has had the common assent of the people of this country. I have required, also, that the voter shall be a citizen of the U.S. Why? Because I hold this to be a Government by the citizens of the U.S., and for the citizens of the U.S. We are sufficiently liberal to the foreigner and every intelligent, right thinking foreigner himself so re r s it when we say to him, “After a certain term of probation, (making it very short, as we do by our laws) when on come to this count as an asylum open or all lovers of liberty in dll lands you shal be permitted to take a position equal in every respect, with the exception, perhaps, of not being eligible to the office of POTUS, to that of the native born citizen." O This, sir, is my idea of what an amendment should be that assumes suffrage as a basis of representation. It is opposed by another sys tem, involving a different principle, which comes to us from the ComReconstruction. This subject had been referred to the ComJudiciary, and was by them held under consideration, and would have been doubtless brought forward in due time. That is the appropriate committee t9 which have always been referred questions and propositions relating to amendment of the constitutiou. But inasmuch as the subject allied itself to some of those matters which were under consideration by the ComReconstruction a proposition submitted by the Gentfrom nine [Mr. Bums] being referred to that committee they have put into form an amendment involving a principle in which representation is to be based on the enumeration of the whole population of the country, excepting any race or color from being counted with regard to which there shall be a denial or abridgment of the elective franchise. I make but two objections now, for it has been too fully and complete] discussed to require that anybody should stain the Boise long in a debate which has already been so protracted. I make but two objections to that amendment, and to me they are objections most fatal to its adoption as a remedy. In the 1st I have been anticipated most clearly and abl by my colleague, [Mr. Law nsncr. ] He objec ted that this language containedintheamendment, reported from the JtComReconstruction “ that whenever the elective franchise shall be denied or abridged in any State on account of race or color, all persons of such race orcolor shall be excluded from the basis of representation” held out virtually an offer of a bargain to the people of the States and to the States by their organic law to disfranchise some portion of the citi Iens; that it was equivalent to saying this: “You may, and by our language weimply that you probably will, deny or abridge the right of voting on account of race or color to some portion of your population, only it shall be with the understanding that if you do you shall by so much lessen your representation.” Now I, together with my colleague and other gentlemgn here, are unwilling, if we can avmd it, and can cetabetter mode of curing this evil, toingrafi. into the organic law of the nation uny thing which looks to even an implied consent that any of the people of any of the States of the Union shall may elocal organic laws which shall strike down and deprive of just, fair, and equal privileges, on account of race or color, any part of their number. But I make another objection, and this does not go so much to the principle as it does to what maybe the practice, the practical working of this amendment, if it shall prevail and be i come a part of the Constitution of the U.S. Let me read the language again: That wheneverthe electivefranchise shall be de nied or abridgedin any State on account of race or color, all personsof such race or color shall be excluded from the basisof representation. Now, sir, I am not one of those who entertain Utopian ideas in relation, not merely to the progress, but to the immediate change of sentiment, opinions, and practice among the people of those States that have so lately been slave States, and so recently in rebellion. I believe that, like all other people, their growth toward good and right and free institutions must necessarily be gradual; and if we pass the amendment which I have proposed, or anything similar to it, and say to them, “ You shall have representation proportioned to the portion of your population to which you extend this in estimable franchise, ” my belief is that they will not, on the next day after it becomes a part of the organic law of the U.S., at once enfranchise all the negroes in their midst. I am not sure that they ought to do it; but we are dealing with the matter now as it presents itself as a practical question. What will they probabl so? Mybelief is thatif you persuade them to do right, ifyou hold out to them an inducement for letting their negroes vote and striking out these disqualifications and puttingall upon the basis of manhood, they will probabl begin, after the amendment becomes part of the organic law, by extending this right to those who have acquired certain property; perhaps they will also extend it after awhile, to those who have certain qualilications of education. however they may proceed, whether ra idly or slowly, it will be a work of progress an a work of time. But by this amendment you would say to them, “ We do not want you to enter upon any such gradual bringing u of these people to the level plain of right to e enjoyed by them equally with others of other races in your midst. ” We say to them, “ You may enfranchise 1/3rd or one 4th of your people who are black and deprived of the privilege of voting by introducing the qualification of property, up to which 1/3rd or one 4th may come; you may introduce a qualification of education up to which a number of them may come; but that will all be of no value; so long as there is any denial or any abridgment of the right to vote of a single man on account of his race or color, you shall have no part of the population of that race or color counted to measure to you your share of representation." Now, I will not go into the abstract question whether they ought to enfranchise the negroes at once or not. I will not O into the question of how soon they ought to do it as a matter of expediency. I say thatin allhuman probability, when they come to enfranchise, if they do it at all, this portion of their population, they will do itgradually; yet bythis amendment, as it comes from the committee, you say that th shall not be re presented for any part of it at a1till they completely enfranchise them and put them on the same footing with the white poulation. It is not worth while to go into tile question as to what expedients shall be or ought to be resorted to in the South or elsewhere in order to educate the negro up to acondition forafull participation in this privilege. It is not worth while to go into the question whether the negro race ought to be completely and equally enfranchised now with the white population. We are dealing, I repeat, with apractical question. We are saying to the South, if we pass this amend kment, “Stand off: we care not for your rop eityqualification.” As an individual, I ouot care for a property qualification for whites or blacks. I repudiate it altogether. I think on that question Dr. Franklins argument about the man and the jackass has never been an swered. But we say also to them, “We do not care about your qualification of reading and writing (on which there may be. ccrtainly Mus sachusetts thinks so something important to be considered;) you may give every negro that, can read and every negro that can write and every negro that can spell, on the day afterthis is made a part of the Constitution of the land, full rights as an elector in your States, but he shall not be counted in the apportionment of representation, nor shall one of his race be counted until you get through with and complete the whole work in some future time when you have enfranchised the whole race.” I do not misconstrue or misstate the language and the evident purpose and effect of the amendment.