Mr. JOHNSON. It ought to be with you a question of principle altogether. I understand you to say that he women of Iowa are to be considered in the same light with the blacks in Maryland. Well, if they are, and they are counted although not privileged to vote, why should not the negro be counted in Maryland although deprived of the privilege of voting? The honorable member confounds the question of representation with the question of the right of suffrage, 2 things, in my judgment, altogether distinct. Supposing now that the honorable member is in favor of this provision, while you lessen by it our representation by deducting from the whole number of our population the negro portion of the population, why is it that you increase our taxation? Is that just? and yet that is precisely what your resolution proposes. It does not leave it as the constitution originally had it, because that subjected us only to taxation apportioned by considering a colored person as equal to 3/5ths of a man. You have increased it now by abolishing the institution of slavery so that every man within Maryland who may be black is to be counted, and you tax accordingly. Thus with one hand you deprive us of a portion of our representation an with the other you increase the amount of our taxation; and from what I know of the very astute, and I was about to say cunning. people of the State of Massachusetts, that is what t icy would not a recto if the principle was applied to them. [Laughter.] do not know, Mr. President, that I have succeeded in satisfying my friendfrom Iowa, although I think I ought to have satisfied him provided it be true that in his opinion there is no distinction between the ladies of Iowa and the blacks of Maryland. [Laughter] I think there is a very material intinction. I must hasten on to a conclusion. The honorable member from Massachusetts has presented a question not applicable to the measure before the Senate, but as he introduced it, I be leave to say a word on the subject. He helds that, independent of any constitutional provision, the authority is in Congress to regulate suffrage because of the clause of the constitution guarantying to each State a RFG. That is; and the honorable member seemed to think that it was so novel that it required very extensive research. He began before the Revolution, and he brought up at the time of the Revolution, carried us into Hall and have us the bugle voice of James Otis heard in the morning sun, charming, electrifying and every heart in the State of Massachusetts, an in the country; and he brought us down from 1775 even to the present time and he said there was an aggregation of authority to show that the power was possessed, and one of the elements of the aggregation was the guarantee clause. How d1 he make it out that there is no republican form except where there is representation? Upon the ground of the declaration of James Otis, which must Have had the attributed to it by the honorable memberand his name ought to be home in reverence through all time by every American citizenthat taxation without representation is tyranny. But to what did he apply it? n land claimed the right to tax us through her Par lament where we were not Represented at all. Was he dealing with the question of the right of suffrage? questionably not.