Mr. HENDRICKS. I do notintend to discuss that particular feature of the revenue system of the U.S. any further. I believe the general statement to be true, that the revenue system adopted within the last 5 years is op ressive to the West, hard upon agriculture, an favorable to manufactures. I do not intend to go into an elaborate discussion of that question. If the revenue laws are again brought before the attention of the Senate, I propose to investigate them and to show just how and to what extent this is so. I have attributed it to the fact that a culture is not represented in the House, an that this amendment proposes permanently to exclude a large interest to a considerable extent from representation in the House. Now, Mr. President, if it is right to change the representation in the House o Representatives, that is, to disturb the foundations of the Government so as to readjust representation, and, as Senators claim, to make it equal and just, why is it not equally right to disturb the representation in the Senate? I know very well the reply will be that the constitution itself forbids an amendment of that instrument in respect to representation in the Senate; but, sir, the power that made that provision can unmake it; the power to amen the constitution can reach that very provision and change the Representation in the Senate. I know it is said the? representation in the Senate is one of the Fedora features of the Government; but that argument has lost its force when we are taught in these latter times that State rights are not to be respected, and that all power is now in the Federal Government. Supose we under take to make representation in the Senateequal, how would it stand? The 6 NewEng and States, with a population of 3, 135, 253, have 12 Senators in this body, while the 6 eat agricultural States of the WestIndiana, Ohio, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, and Missourihave a population of 8, 414, 625, with a representation of 12 Senators. With nearly 3 times the population of NewEngland, we have the same representation. If those States have this advantage in this body, is it fair to try to cut off the representation of agriculture in the other end of this Capitol? While Indiana has a population of 1, 350, 428, RhdIslanda glorious, gallant little Statehas a population of 174, 620. o far as representation in the Senate is concerned, one man in RhdIsland has a voice and 1power in the legislation of this country equa to 8 men in Indiana. Takin the entire NewEngland States, one man in NewEngland has the voice and power in legislation in the Senate of nearly 3 men in the West. Is that right, is that just, when you are talking about equality of representation? I do not want to change that feature in our Government. I wish to stand by the State representation as our fathers established it. I do not want to take any of the political power from NewEngland that our fat iers agreed she might have. will stand by their representation as firmly as they will, but I do not like that they shall ask to reduce the representation of the West and Southwest. This, then, Mr. President, as I have said, is l a proposition, 1st, to perpetuate the rule and power of a political party; in the 2nd place, it is a proposition the tendency of which is to place agriculture under the control and power of manufactures and commerce forever; and, in the 3rd place, it is intended, I believe, as punishment upon the southern States. Why Will Senators say that the southern States may give to the colored people the right to vote and then they will be fully represented? Senators know very well that the southern white people cannot do that. They know very well that in. 2 of the southern States, SCarolina and Mississippi. the colored population is larger than the white population, and they know that it is impossible for a white population to remain in either of those States i? you place the colored man upon a platform of political cguality with the white man. Sir, it is impossib e. Instead. of being controlled by white men, those 2 States would fall under the control of the colored people. Their Legislatures would be filled by co ored people; Congress would be filled, so far as Representatives came from those States, by colored people; and colored men would be sent as Senators to this body if those States were forced to give political power to them. There is, then, no propriety in Senators saing that the southern States can confer the rightto vote upon the colored people. It is impossible for them to do it. In the condition of their society it cannot be. Then this proposition is simply to take from them a representation upon that portion of their population, and to a opt a rule in regard to them different from the rule that applies to the people of the North. We have from 15 to 20 Representatives in the HoRep based upon a non-voting population. The same representation upon a non-voting black population on propose unjustly to deny to the South. hen, sir, is it a punishment? Now that the war is over, now that the southern people have laid down their arms, now that they have sought to come again fully and entirely into the Union, now that they have pledged their honors and their fortunes to be true to the Union and to the flag, now that they have done all that can be done by a conquered people is it right, after a war has been fought out, or us to take from them their political equality in this Union for the purpose of punishment? The Senfrom Maine, the chairman of the committee, says that the right to control the suffrage is with the States. but if the States do not choose to do right in respect to it, we propose to punish them. You do not. punish NewYork for not letting the foreigner vote until he resides there a certain period. You do not punish Indiana because she will not allow a foreigner to vote until he has been in the count:1 year. These States are not to be punished" because they regulate the elective franchise aceordin to their sovereign pleasures; but if any over States see fit to deny the right of voting to a class that is peculiarly guar edand taken care of here, then they are to be punished. Mr. President, in this idea of punishment I think I may venture to say that Senators do not reflect the gallant Army that has been recently disbanded. That Army fought in a high cause, asthey thought, and when the enemy fell down before them as a eat Army, they felt that they should protect tfihm; and you cannot find a bold soldier in the North who would take advantage of his prisoner and punish him. But we, as a nation, because we have succeeded in the great controversy, because we have subju gated the southern States, because they are conquered, in the language of some gentlemen, because they have laid own their arms, now propose to punish them in a manner unknown to the law eretofore. Mr. President, as a punishment this thing cannot be done without violating the principles of humanity, as I have said, and the great principles of the common law, and the principle of the constitution of the U.S. that instrument provides that no exposifacto law shall be passed. That means that no law shall be passed punishing an act which was innocent at the time it was done, or punishing it by penalties not prescribed at the time the act was done, or punishing it upon less testimony than was required to convrct at the time the act was done. N ow, sir, you say that these people have been in rebellion, that they have committed a great crime, which I agree to. How are the to be punished? They have been punished in that manner known to nations as the highest punishment that can be inflicted. They have gone through the battle and they have been defeated. They come before us as a conquered people; and this is the punishment, if this is to be regarded as a war between belliverents. Do senators claim that prisoners of5war taken by one belligerent from the army of the other can be punished because the are prisoners of war? Thatis a sentiment of the barbarous ageswhich, thank God, has passed forever, so far as Euro e and America are concerned. One reason why I would like to see Maximilian driven from American soil is that he violates a sentiment that every American respects, and puts prisoners of war to death. Now, Mr. President, is it possible that Senators will say, thatJn this condition of the count they are going to change the constitution orfythe U.S. for the purpose of punishment or to gratif revenge? a there such a sentiment here? f there be one here, there is not among the soldiers at home. If a soldier were to see a wrong being done to his captive he would interfere at the risk of his life to prevent that wrong. Let that sentiment be respected here. Let equality, justice, and right prevail in our legislation, especially in regard to algendments of the constitution which must stan. The Senfrom Oregon [Mr. WiLLIAMs] spoke yesterday of punishing States. I wish he were here, sir. That Senator dwells far 06, his land resting upon the peaceful waters of the Pacific, and intervening mountains cast their shadow over his home and the homes of his people. I presume there is not a colored man in that country. If Indiana sees fit in her sovereign pleasure to deny to the ten or 20 or 30,000 negroes in that State the right to vote, he, from Oregon, proposes to punish Indiana! What has o to do with the suffrage in Indiana? We do not let them vote, and unless you compel us to do it, we propose never to do it; and yet he says there is to be punishment for it. I do not like that word “punishment” between States of this Union. You have no right to punish a State because it does that according to its own pleasure which it has a right to do. If a State, as was admitted by the Senfrom Maine, has a right to control the question of suffrage, no Congress has a right to control her in the exercise of her power. But I wish to speak of that in another connection. Is this a measure to coerce? On that point I desire to read what the Senfrom 9 said. 1st, it is to punish, and in the 2nd place to coerce, to do indirectly that which you cannot do directly. Let us see what the Senator said: “Bnt, sir, the great excellenceof it” That is, this amendment of the constitution. I think he might have left off the adjective. “But, sir, the great excellenceof itand I think it is an excellsnceis, that it accomplishes indirectly what we may not have the power to accomplish directly.” I resume this is the 1st time in the Senate of e U.S. that a boast was made, and it was claimed as a virtue for a measure, that it accomplished indirectly what could not be done directly. What the body has not the power to do directly, we boast we can do indirectly! Let me read the rest of the Senators sentence, and you will see what he means: “If we cannot put into the constitution, owing to existin preiudicesand existing institutions. an entire exc usion of all clas sdistinctions, the autumn 2:: ya, can we accomplish that work in any other Why can you not put it in the constitution direct y as the Senfrom Missouri [Mr. Hsn nsasoaj proposes to do? As much as I dislike his measure, I like it for its boldness and its frankness; and all men, when they come to refleet a little about it, I think will admire it for those qualities. Butthe Senator says, “Because of eXisting prejudices we cannot amend the constitution to have the right of suffrage to colored people, an therefore we will do this thing indirectly.” Why can you not do it directly? Because of the prejudices of the people; or, in other words, because the people will not let you do it; but as the people are against it we will do it indirectly. Was ever such an argument as that heard in the Senate of the U.S. an argument in favor of amending the constitution of the U.S. that it does a thing indirectly that we cannot do directly I In direction, I thought, was always a vice. I have always observed when I went into court to defend a client that ifthere was anything in his conduct that brought about a result by indirection the jur was sure to beat my case. They would say, ” If he has been in the right, if he has had a fair contract, why has he not met it directly, and why is there indirection and shifting and winding in the business?" So I say to the Senator, if he cannot go before the American people with his amendment, and say to them, ” ffere is a proposition, based upon humanity and right; here are 4 million people that onght to be allowed to vote, and you are expecte to come up and indorse the right.” But e says he cannot carry it. in that way, and he proposes a coercion upon the southern States, that they shall be compelled to do it. My colleague proposes to vote for it; and why? His voice has never been heard in Indiana to enfranchise the 10,000 negroes there; and although his party was in power in the lower House of the Legislature by a very large majorit they could not gass it. at the session just a joiirned in that State. But here by indirection you propose to give the right of suffrage where all admit the negroes are not as well qualified as they are in the northern States. Up to this time, live States of the Union have allowed the elective franchise to the ne re, and 3one have denied it; one out o 7 haveal owed it; and now the Senator says he dare not go before the Legislatures for the ratification of the direct proposition; but he will wrap this thin upI was going to use an expression which decline to usehe will so cover up his proposition as that the people will not understand the hill force of it; or, in other words, so that he can appeal to the selfishness of the northern people to do in respect to other States what they Will not do in respect to themselves, and thus carry a measurethat will secure political power forever. Senators, do you oonour in a proposition like 880" THE saucerssioim. origin; that? Can an Indianian go before the Indiana if Legislature and say, ” Sens&Reps, you must coerce the southern States to give the right ofvoting to the negro, butyou must not give that righ there athomei” That is what the Senators proposition means. “We cannot trust these nortern legislatures, because they will not agree to the ting directly; but if we leave them out of it and make it applicable alone to the southern States, then we will get it through in some way.” Mr. President, I ask Senators the question: have the States, under the constitution the right to control the elective franchise? Does any Senator here question it? The Senfrom Massachusetts does. He thinks that Congress may control the right of suffrage in the States, and upon the question of logic, I think he has the outage of the majority of this body. Last week, or the week before, Senators voted for a bill which they themselves said was not constitutional except under the recent amendment. That amendment provided that slavery should be abolished and that Congress should have power to adopt appropriate legislation to carry it out; and you said that under that provision Congress had the power not only to declare the negro a free man, but to o further, to go into the States and give him e right to testify in the State courts, and you did that upon the argument that it was necessar in order to protect him in his freedom. “as not that your argument? Then, when the Senfrom Massachusetts says, ” You may go still further; the right to testify in the courts is important to protect the colored man in his freedom, but the right to vote is more iin rtant, ” doyou, senators, deny that the right to vote is more important to protect the liberty of a man than the right to testify? Who denies that? Give the colored men of a State the right to vote, and if at all numerous they become a power in the State. They do not have to go to the Legislature and be"; they go there as the sovereigns, the mayers of legislators, and say to those legislators, “You shall not come back here again unless you do usjustice.” Is not that the highest guarantee that can be given to a man for his liberty and his rights? understand that to be the argument of the Senfrom Massachusettss. If you said that in the exercise of your judgment to protect the freedom of the negro it was necessary to give him the right to testify in the courts, the Senfrom Massachusetts has a right to demand your vote upon the other proposition, that the right to vote is important to protect him in his liberty and in his rights. I am not embarrassed by this question, for I did not vote for that bill. I do not believe in the construction that on put upon the constitutional amendment. do not believe it authorizes such legislation, and therefore I am not embarrassed by it; butI think that when other Senators come to vote upon the proposition of the Senfrom Massachusetts they will find some embarrassment. Before this digression I was askin the question, does any Senator deny that the States, especially in the absence of legislation by congress, can control the right of suffrage? If that is a constitutional right in the States, have you a right by any influence to attempt to control the States in its exercise? Canyon send force into Indiana and demand of her Legislature that they shall enfranchise the colored men? Certainly not. Can you go into the Legislature of Indiana and persuade them to do that thing? enii you go there as a Senator for that purpose? Certainly not. Then can you send a bribe into the Legislature of Indiana to influence the action of that body upon a subject over which it h“as exclusive control? You say to Indiana, You adopt a particular policy and on shall have enlarged representation in the HoRep. You say to Kentucky, ” If you will adopt a particular policy in regard to a question over which you have exclusive control, we will bribe you by giving you a larger representation in the House.” Sir, it is worse than force; it is a bribe, in bribe of political power. The remark was made by a Senator I thinkby the Senfrom Maine“ You know the desire of men for power, and especially political power. " and thatis the influence that is to be old out before independent States! Take Kentucky, which hasa large colored opulation, a population so large that the enfranchiseinent of the colored people would mate rially affect the policy of the State, and the question is for that State to decide, shall they be voters? That is their question. We sayso here. Kentucky is sovereign upon thati question. We in Congress say to Kentucky, ” on have that right, and we admit ou have the exclusive right; it is so written in the constitution; now, hentucky, you have at present 9 representatives; if you enfraucliise the colored people of your State on shall have ten; but if you do not you shall, have but 4 or 5 or 6.” That is the influence which my distinguished friendfrom Maine says it is propershould be exercised. That is indirection, that the Federal Government shall use its power to bribe a Stateb the offer of additiona political influence in this Union if she will adopt a policy agreeable to us. I cannot believe that Senators will be influenced by that argument, although presented with so much ability; it is certainl impossible. But, Mr. resident, do we want to make all the colored people vote? I am very free to say that I do not. I do not want to make any of them voters. I am not going to discuss the question whether the colored man is the equal of the white man. I think there need be no discussion on a question like that. But withouttion of equality, I say that we are not of the! same race; we are so different that we on lit not to compose one political community. ad the white men of this country a right to establish a Government and thereby a political communit? If so, they had a right to say who shouldbe members of that political community. They had a right to exclu c the colored man if they saw fit. Sir, I say, in the language of the lamented Douglas, and in the language of president Johnson, this is the white mans Government, made by the white man for the white man. I am not ashamed to stand behind such distinguished men in maintaining a sentiment like that. Nor was my judgment on the subject changed the day before yesterday by the lamentations of the Senfrom NewHampshire [Mr. CLARK] sounding through this be y like the wailing of the winds in the dark forest, “that it is a horrible thing for a man lo sa that this is a white mans Government, ” and asing “Would you have said so down in front of Petersbur 1” or, ” Would you have said so at the funera of the colored soldiers?” &c. Mr. President, there is a great deal said about the part the colored soldiers have taken i. but ting down this rebellion, a great deal more t on there is any occasion for, or there is any support for in fact or history. This rebellion was at down by the white soldiers of this country. Applause in the galleries.