Mr. JOHNson. I believe, Mr. President, that the question immediately before the senate is the amendment od'cred by the Senfrom Oregon to the JtResolution. Before I proceed to discuss the questions which. as it seems to me, are iresented by the proposition as a whole, I beglleave to as a word upon the particular effectofthatamendment. The honorable member who offered it, and who I suppose offered it with the concurrence of some of his friends who are in favor of the measure as it originally stood, I think stated to us the other day that it did not substantially change the provisions to he found in the 2nd section of the original proposition. What I suggested to him then I propose very briefly to suggest now, that perhaps in that he is mistaken; and as, in common with every Senator, I am, as I should be, desirous of having these constitutional amendments made as plain as language can make them, so as to avoid the evils sure to result from the existence of any ambi uity, I suggest that I think it will be found that t ie amendment of the Senfrom Oregon is obnoxious to a very serious objection, and goes very much further than the original proposition for which he proposes it as a substitute. The language of the substitute, as far as the exceptions to which the general rule which it states at the same time is to be subject, is, that “ whenever the right to vote atany election held under the Constitution and laws of the U.S., or of any State, is denied to any of the male inhabitants ofsuch State, ” &c., they are to be deducted from the number which is to constitute the basis of apportionment. The language of the original proposition was, that “whenever, in any State, the elective franchise shall be denied to any portion of its male inhabitants, being citizens of the U.S., not less than 21 years of age, or in any way abridged, ” &c., then the basis is to be reduced in the proportion that the number excluded shall bear to the whole number of that age and of that sex. Now, I think it will be found (and in that I believe I have the concurrence of several members of the Senate who are in favor of the proposition as it was originally presented) that the effect of the amendment is to change the basis by deducting from the number which is to constitute the basis, any portion of that number, of 21 years of age, who are citizens of the U.S., who shall be denied the right to vote at any election under the constitution or laws of any State. In all the States there are elections of a municipal character that are regulated by law, and in which the franchise is different from that which prevails in the general elections of the State; and the consequence would be that where any persons who are 21 years of age are denied the right to vote the basis of representation is to be lessened in the proportion that the number excluded shall bear to the whole number fallin within the class. I do not know what would be the condition of the State of Missouri, for example, if the amendment is to beadopted. I rather think that she would lose very mate rially by this amendment, in her representation; and I think the same thing would be found true of the State of Ohio, and Isupposeof nearly all the States in the Union. hat I suggest, therefore, to the honorable member and to the Senate is, that the phraseology of this amendment. if it is to prevail, shall be so changed as to leave it beyond doubt that all that is meant is to exce at out of the whole rfhmber of inhab itauts oft e age of 21 years oru ward, who are citizens of the State, those w no are denied the right to vote at any State election, as contradistinguished from any municipal or local election. Without such a qualification I am sure it will lead to very serious doubts, and it may lead, as those doubts may be solved, to a very serious diminution of the repreeutation of several of the States. What I am about to say upon the merits of the rule itself, whether that rule is found in the amendment or found in the original prop position, will be said as briefly as I can say it, and more for the purpose of explaining to my own constituents the ground oft 0 reasons for the vote which I propose to give than with any kepe of influencing the opinions of any member of the Senate who is now in favor of the prop position. It comes before us in such a shape and under such circumstances that it is not to be expected, as I think, that those who were consulted, who deliberated upon, and who advised the measure in the form in which it stands, can be persuaded of the error of that measure in any particular by anything which may fall from a Senator who is opposed to the entire proposition. The Constitution of the U.S., as it now is, in the 2nd section of the 1st article provides for the manner in which the apportionment is to be made of representatives in Congress. It is made to deen upon the whole number of the people foun in each State; and in relation to the propriety of such an apportionment there did not exist in the Convention by whom the provision as it now stands was adopted, any doubt. In the 54th number of the Federalist, attributed, whether correctly or not, to Mr. Hamilton there is some doubt whether he or Mr. Madison was its an th‘or in recommendin the adoptionof the Constitution to the peop e of the U.S., and commenting upon the manner in which the apportionment was to be made, as well as the manner in which taxes were to be levied, it is said: “It is not contendedthat the number of peoplein eachStateought not to be the standardfor regulating the proportion of thosewho are to representthe peopleof eachState.” That rule in the same paper was said to be one “referring to the personal rights of the people, with which it has a natural and univer sal connection;" and the only doubt which existed in the minds of the Convention or any member of the Convention upon the subject was not whether numbers was not the true rule by which the basis was to be ascertained, but whether the slaves of the southern States should be considered as a portion of those numbers; and that doubt arose because the southern States insisted that the slaves were property, and the North, while recognizing the existence of property in slaves, thought it unjust that the slaves should be considered at all in apportioning the number of Representatives to which the States where the slaves might be found should be entitled. The result was, after quite a struggle upon the subject, a compromise, by which taxation was to be regulated and by which the apportionmeht of Representatives was to be regulated by counting 5 slaves as only equal to 3 free men. But, I repeat, neither then nor at any time since, until now, 'did it ever occur to anybody that in a form of government like ours the basis of representation was not to depend upon the entire number of the people to be represented; and in this amendment that is admit ted to be the true basis. It provides, both as it was originally proposed by the committee by whom it was reported and as it is proposed to be amended by the honorable member from Oregon, that Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within the Union according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State and excluding Indians not taxed. So that the honorable committee and the friends of this particudar measure give their sanction to that as the true rule. They stand upon the ground on which our fathers stood when they adopted a rule of the same description in the Constitution, as it now stands, that numbers are to regulate representation. The only question, therefore, which the particular amendment suggests is, whether it is right to qualify the operation of that general rule as is proposed to be done by this provision. Now, what is the qualification? Only that persons 21 years of age inhabiting each State, and being citizens of the U.S., whose right to the exercise of the elective fran‘ chise is denied or in any way abridged, except in certain exceptions to which I shall refer after awhile, are to be deducted from the whole number, and the basis is to consist of what may remain. But the friends of the measure are not willing I so not willin because that is not the etfect o the mutantment to subject the rule which they themselves admit to be just to the general qualification which a general provision of that sort would make; and they therefore except from the o oration of that qualification certain classes. W oare they? I say they exco t by not including, for all persons not included within this exception are acknowledged within the scope of the general rule of numbers. Now, who are to be found in the States? 1st, aliens; 2nd, women, black and white, now all the blacks are free; 3rd, mine rs, those under 21 years of age, white and black; 4th, those who may have articipated “in rebellion or other crimes.” hen what will be the operation of the section if we adopt it? It will be that all aliens are to be represented, all women are to be represented, almine rs are to be represente, and all rebels are to be represented. Why is that? This is to go before the people. How will the objection be answered, as it is certain to be made before the people, when the authors of this measure are aske, why suffer the women and mine rs to be represented, why suffer aliens to be represented, and, above all, why suffer rebels to be represented, and not suffer loyal men to be represented? How will it be answered, I mean to an unimpassioned judgment; I mean to a people who it is to be hoped will not be influenced by the excitement of party passion or by the prejudices growing out of the sad conflict through which we have triumphantly come? It is to be onlyanswered upon the ground that the provision is necessary to secure to the black man the franchise. Is that any answer? Is it any answer that because you cannot acquire for the black man the right to the franchise he is to be denied the right of being represented? Your own theory is, as it was of your fathers, that all should be represented without reference to color, the black as wellas the white. The black isa freeman. That is your theory. But the effect of the exception is to deny to the black man the right of representation unless the State shall secure to iim the right to the franchise. Again, Mr. President, the measure upon the table, like the 1st proposition submitted to the Senate from the committee of 15, concedes to the States and that was one o rounds upon which the honorable member W‘ from Massachusetts [Mr. Seaman] voted and s oke against that proposition not only the right, but the exclusive right, to regulate the franchise. His theory was that under the Constitution as it now stands, Congress has the authority to regulate the franchise in the States; and his objection to the original prop position, to which I have just adverted, was that, if adopted, it would surrender that right which he supposed to exist; and yet I im agine it is bare y possible that he may vote for the section as it now stands; and what does it do? It says that each of the southern States, and, of course, each other State in the Union, has a right to regulate for itself the franchise, and that consequently, as far as the Govern ment of the U.S. is concerned, if the black man is not permitted the right to the franchise. it will lie a wrong (if a wrong) which the Government of the U.S. 'will be impotent to redress. I see no differencc, not the slightest, between the proposition as it now stands, so far as this section is concerned and the original proposition which we rejected. I call the at tention of my friendfrom Massachusetts, to whom I referred just now, to the language of the original proosition reported to us by the committee of figeen on the 31st of January last. It says that Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States, (to; “provided, that wrenever the elective franchise shall be denied or abridged in any State on account of race or color, al persons of such race or color shall be excluded from the basis of representation." What does this do? The words “race or color” are omitted. Why, ll I was an eastern man, I might guess; but no matter what may have been the particular motive for the omission of the W'QTdS, the effect of the proposition is identical with that of the original proposition. The former was obnox ious to the honorable member from Massachusetts because it surrendered a right which he made a very elaborate speech to prove, in his judgment, existed in the Congress of the U.S. to regulate the franchise, if not always, certainly in the condition in which the country now is. This accomplishes the same purpose. It says to the States, “If you exclu e any class from the right to vote, we, admittin your power to make the exclusion, say it shal have no other effect whatever than to deduct the number excluded from thenivhole number which is to constitute the basis of representation. If, therefore, you exclude from the benefit of the franchise any who are citizens of the U.S., and 21 years or more of age, and inhabitants of the State, who belong to any particular race, or who are of any color contradistinguished from the white man, we admit that you have a right to exclude them, and all we propose to do is to say that to the extent of that exclusion your basis of representation shall be diminished.” Now, is it not known to us all that there is not in anyone of the southern States, and has not been for years, any exclusion of any white man having the age and having the residence required by the Constitution and laws of the particular State, from the right to the franchise; that the whole exclusion, where there has been any exclusion at all, has been of the free blacks, and will hereafter be of all the blacks, as all are now free? The whole operation, therefore, of the proposition before you, that part of it to which am now addressing myself, is to say precisely what the origi na preposition of the (fist of January said “You who deny to any person belonging to any race or color the right to vote shall have your representation in the Congress of the U.S. lessened in the proportion that the number excluded shall bear to the entire number.” The manner of ascertaining the way in which the representation is d'pm mi'slied is changed in point of for e result is the same. By the origin proposition of January 31 all of/tne race oreolor were to be deducted; by the proosition before us the deduction is to be in tie proportion that the number excluded shall bear to the combined number (if those included and excluded within the privilege of the franchise. Jet me for a moment call the attention of the body to what will be the operation of that provision. The census of 1860, and I believe that is the case with all previous censuses, does not give us the number of males of 21 years of age, but it does give the number of those who are 20 years of age and upward.