Mr. FESSE; DE. Very well, then I know who he is. His name, it appears, is Isaac Far well Holten; I dare sfiyavery respectable and a very pious man is petition is in these wo“rds: Whereas the constitution of the U.S. movides that no Statp shall grant any title of noity and that the citizens of each State shall be, entitled toall priVileges and immunities of the several States; and whereas that revered instrument contains now no clause that would disgrace a free nation or contradict the declaration that all men are born equal; and whereasa resolution for amendment of the constitution has pnssed the HoRep, which. in the opinion of the undersigned menld repeal these provmions and contradict this declaration. t hp respectfully prays you to reject said amendm en. The inference is that the passage of this resolution would disgrace a free nation and contradict the declaration that all men are born equal, and the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts gives to that statement the sanction of his high authorit. Sir, if I thought the passage of this resolution would disgrace this nation, I should not stand up here, even by the direction of a committee, to present it and to recommend it to the consideration of the senate. If I thought it would repeal the declaration that all men are created equal and entitled to the same rights under the law, so far as that declaration exists, I trust I should be longas long as the honorable Senfrom Massachusettsin standing here before the body of which I am a member and advocating its passage. Sir, it is something of an imputation even coming from the mouth of the Senfrom Massachusetts to say that more than. 2/3rds of the HoRep, and those his friends socially, and politically, and in every sense, and his constituents, have been ilty of fabricating and passing a resolution which is a disace to the country, and which repeals the car inal principle upon which our institutions are foun ed. I think that the honorable senator, when he gave the sanction of his high authority to declarations like these, had hardly well considered whether or not it was modest so to designate the actionof many men who, though less eminent than himself, have each some claim upon the consideration of his country. Now, sir, as I do not agree with this petition, I shall venture to do what becomes my duty as a member of the ComReconstruction socalled, and that is to endeavor to present, not my own views entirely, but the views which actuated the committee in recommending this JtResolution which has been laid upon your table. The resolution under consideration, it will be noticed is not the original one thatI presented. After discussion in the HoRep, it was recommitted to the committee, and was amended there by striking out the words, ” and direct taxes.” This was done for 2 reasons. In the 1st place, it was thought that it would be stronger Without a provision having reference to direct taxes, upon which a question mightbe raised. In the next place, if the words “and direct taxes” were stricken out of the resolutiofl, the result is precise] the same, because the direct taxes are by the constitution levied and aportioned upon precisely the same principle. herefore it was entirely unnecessary to have the words in, and, in fact, the only argument in favor of it was that the 2 might go together in the same paragraph; but inasmuch as some objected to them, it was thought well enough to omit them. I have stated this preliminarily. I wish to say another thing by way of introduction. It. has been objected, I think, by an honorable gentleman in the other House, that the committee in reporting this resolution had traveled beyond its powers; that it was a question not submitted to them. I beg leave to say, lest any Senator who hears me should have the same impression, that a resolution substantially similar to this one was referred by the HoRep to the committee that had these subjects under consideration, and being sent to them for their consideration, of course they had the best right in the world to report upon it, and to report it in the shape in which it was originally sent, or in any other shape in which they chose to put it. I think, therefore, that the committee of 15 is not open to animadversion as havine r exceeded its powers or taken upon itself anyting that did not properly belong to it. Something has been said, also, on different occasions; With reference to a disosition that is said to prevail now to amend the Constitution, and the forbearance of Congresshas been invoked with regard to that venerable and great instrument. I believe that I have as much ven cration for the constitution as meet men, and I believe that I have as high an opinion of its wisdom; but, sir, I probably have no better opinion of it than those who made it, and it did not seem to them, as we learn from its very provisions, that it was so perfect that no amendment whatever could be made that would be, in the language of the Senfrom Massachusetts, an improvement. Why, sir, they provided themselves, as we all know, in the original instrument, for its amendment. They, in the very earliest da s of our history, amended it themselves. the found defects in this great work of their ban 5, and the set themselves regularly towork to see if there was in the instrument, which ought to be perfect, and is as perfect, perhaps, as human bands can make anything, anything which might disfigure it, or which needed strengthening, or perhaps more elaboration. That was their opinion as proved by their acts; and I might ad, that it is barely possible, if gentlemen will consider, that in the progress of ages, in the advance of time, circumstances may arise that will render it necessary, and have rendered it necessary, to revise the instrument and to accommodate its powers to the developments which time has made. such is eminently the condition of things now. We have had a great war. That war has resulted in overthrowing an institution of the States, one that had been a blight and a curse upon this nation from its very foundation. The contest in which we have been engaged has put an end to that institution. There are provisions in the constitution having express reference to the existence of slavery more especially the provision under consideration, that with reference to representation, which was made expressly because in some of the States there were a large number of peole not recognized as free men but held as Madmen, and not responsible for their own acts, that is to say, politically, or considered with reference to the political condition of the country. Under these circumstances, slavery being done away with, the provision of the constitution which was made with reference to it becomes in a degree ine perative and may well be subject to revision. It may be answered that the constitution, in this particular, takes care of itself; that there is no difficulty about it; that the original provision that representation shall be founded upon populationincluding all persons, with one exception, and with regard to those 3/5thsWill take care of itselfwhen they become free, because, of necessity, when they become free persons, the provision with regard to Representation has reference to all, an it is a simple matter that now there are no classes of persons in the country who come within the description which was hinted at by the Constitution; all stand alike upon the same basis, and representation is properly founded upon population. This isal ver well; there is no doubt of the correctness of the reposition so far as the construction of the constitution is concerned; but, sir, it so happens that we cannot put out of sight one thing which has gone with us from the foundati of the Government and has come down the present day, and that is, that slavery has existed; that it has been abolished within one or 2 months substantially, since the declaration of the final action of the States; that there are left in sev cral of the States of the Union a lar c number of persons ignorant and uneducatc, who u to a very recent period have been held in bondage, considered by the constitution itself as entirely unfit to be counted as a part of the people of the U.S and represented as a whole; and that now, at the present moment, not only have they been m e free, but they have been made free against the will of the remainder of the population of those States; to which must be a tied, the anger of those who have been compelled to submit to their freedom, the natural desire that the master has to retain power, the natural disincliuation that he has to see his former slave placed upon a level with himself. All this is perfectly obvious, for m know the history Oft ie world shows that those who once possess power never yield it willingly. Men are not made of such stuff that they can give up the possession of that which has been dear to them without a sigh and withouta struggle. What then have we a right to suppose would be the result of leaving the constitutional provision where it is? simply this, that so far as the power exists in the States, it would still be exercised to deny all political rights to those who have heretofore been considered unfit and not in a condition to exercise them. The result of that is what? The continuance of precisely the same rule, and the fostering of a feeling which the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts has well proven to be contrary to the very foundation principles of arepublican government. There can be no question that such would be the result; and we should have in a portion of the States all the people represented and all the people acting, and in another portion of the States all the people represented and but a portion of the people only exercising political rights and retaining them in their own hands. such has been the ease, and such, judging of human nature as it is, we have a right to suppose will continue to be the case. Then the question arises whether it is not our duty to guard in some way against this, whether it is not the duty of Congress if it can exercise it, and the duty of the people, to see not on] that all men, all free men, have the rights that belong to them so far as we can contrive it, but that the temptation shall be removed to keep up a system which, if it does not end in tyranny or an oligarchy, or an aristoc. racy, has a tendency to makean oligarchy and an aristocracy in fact, and a feeling which as long as it exists and there is power to exercise it has a tendency only to injure the institutions of the State where it may exist and where the exercise of it may be found. There is a simplewa of doing this. I expected that the onorable Senfrom Massachusetts, who does not like this amendment, would have proposed it. Why not propose a sim le amendment precisely in the same terms the erable Senfrom Missouri [Mr. HendERSON] hasa proposition doin away at once with all distinctions on accounto race or color in all the States of this Union so far as regards civil and political rights, privileges, and immunities? hat would go to the root of the matter. I am free to confess that, could I legislate upon that subject although I can see difficulties that would arise from it, yet trusting to time to soften them, and being desirous, if I can, to put into the constitution a principle that commends itself to the consideration of every enlightened mind at once, I would prefer something of that sort, a distinct proposition that all provisions in the constitution or laws of any State making any distinction in civil or political rights, or privileges, or immunities whatcver, should be held unconstitutional, ineperative, and void, or words to that effect. I would like that much better; and I take it there are not many Senators within the sound of my voice who would not my much prefer it; but, after all, the committee did not recommend a provision of that description, and I stand here as the organ of the committee, approving what they have done, and not disposed to urge my own peculiar views, if I have any, against theirs, or to rely exclusively on my own judgment so far as to denounce what honorable and true men, of better judgments than myself have thought bestto recommend, and in which unite and agree with them. An objection that might be made to that, a real objection. would be its immediate o. eration. It would place the States which have recently been slave States in this condition, that they must either limit the suffrage too far or they must extend ittoo far for their own safety, or, at any rate, for what might be presumed to be their own good, I take it no one contends, I think the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts himself, who is the great champion of Universal suffrage, would hardly contend, that now at this time the whole mass of the population of the recent slave States is fit to be admitted to the exercise of the right of suffrage. I presume no man who 100 s at the question dispassionately and calmly could contend that the rent mass of those who were recently slaves undoubtedly there may lie exceptions) an who have been kept in ignorance all their lives, oppressed, more or less forbidden to acquire information, are fit at this day to exercise the right of suffrage, or could be trusted to do it, unless under such good advice as those better able might be prepared to give them. If we passed a resolution of that kind, what would be the result? The result would be that the slave States, socalled, must either admit all or clse they must make arule of exclusion which would cut off not only all or nearly all the colored population, but a very large portion of their own white population from the exercise of the right of suffrage, for it has been a characteristic of those States that they have been almost as unwilling to extend the benefits of education to the whites as to the blacks, and the result which I spoke of would follow: power would pass into the hands of the few, comparatively verynfew. The whole civil and gplitical power of the State would be exercised y but a very small number, and for a time, at least, it would be what the dictionaries define to be an oligarchy, the power of afew. Ispeak of this notas an argument that would prevent my putting into the constitution a provision, not perhaps in terms, but in substance, like that which is offered by the honorable Senfrom Missouri, ifI could accomplish it. Of course I would trust to time, and it would have its effect. With that great principle lyinv at the bottom, after awhile the result would be attained, and we shouid have in the constitution itself what I would like to see there, a glorious exhibition of what does, as the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts proved to us, lie at the very foundation of republican government. at, however this might be, (and I do not propose to enlarge upon it, I only propose to state the difficulties) I am not convinced that suffrage is such a very natural right that it must necessarily be conferred upon every free man. I think no Senator will contend for that. In a republican Government it may be that it may receive the name of a right, although most people call it a privilege; buta voter is an officer, not in the same degree, perhaps, but as much so in substance as the man who enters the jury box, as anyone who holds an office. It is a trust imposed upon him by the law, which he executes under the law, and although I hold that the exercise of the right of suffrage should be extended just as fast and as far as the public good will allow, I do not hold thatiiny man is injured when a just and reasonable law provides that something more is necessary to imthan a bare existence as a free manin a communit in order to exercise it. While the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts argued, and argued with great force, that every man should have that right, and that he should only be subject to disabilities which he could overcome, his argument, connected with the other principle that he laid down and the aplication of it that he made, that taxation an representation should go together, would just as well a ply to women as to men; but I noticed that t ie honorable Senator dod edthat part of the proposition very carefully. hile he says that mine rs and insane persons and divers ot ers, and perhaps those who were not well educated, might very properly be excluded, yet when it came to the question whether females should vote or not, I did not hear that be expressed any opinion upon that subject whatever; and yet his argument goes to that extent. If a necessary connection between taxation and representation applies to the individuals in a State, and that is his application of it aii application which our ancestors never made ofit; they a plied it to communities, not to individuals ll should like to have him tell me why every female that is taxed ought not to vote. Sir, all this question with regard to the right is one after all, in my judgment, to be wisely considered by every State. You cannot settle it upon any minute principle, because the conditions of the States vary. In one State one rule may be beneficial, in another another. The only question is whether the law is just, and whether in the rules that are made in regard to it there is nothing that is at war with the great principle which lies at the foundation of our Government, that all men are and ought to be equal. I agree with the Senfrom Massachusetts, that a caste exclusion is entirely contrary to the spirit of our Government, or ofany RFG. ut, sir, it was not my intention to discuss that question; I come back to that which I state: what are the objections to putting into the constitution at once a provision doingaway with all distinctions of this kind? I have given one answer which does not satisfy myself. But: the argument that addressed itselfto the committee was, what can we accomplish? What can pass? If we reporta provision of this ki is there the slightest probability that it will be adopted by the States and become a part of the constitution of the U.S.? It is perfectly evident that there could be no hope of that description. The argument with regard to Connecticut was not that the action proved aright, but I might appeal to the vote which was taken in one of our own NewEngland States rejecting a proposition which proposed to do away with all distinctions between men on account of color; I might go to Wisconsin and appeal to my honorable friend who insists so strongly on having 36 stars, [ML DOOLITTLE] and ask him what probability there would be of its adoptionin Wisconsin orin any of the western States, where the difficulty exists now. We must take men as we find them. Why, sir, if we proposed an amendment of this descrition, an if we passed it in Congress, of which probably there would be no sort of chance in the world, how long should we have to look to the States before it could become a part of the constitution? I think it would go in Maine, because we are vervliberal there, and particularly welleducated. (Laughterj Ican not answer for any other State, not even NewHampshire, for I believe NewHampshire will not a low Catholics to hold Office; and if that is so it looks very much to me as if possibl they might reject such an amendment; but think it would go in NewHampshire. But how is it in NewYork? NewYorkmakes the distinction today and insists upon it. Of course we should have all the States where slavery has existed against us. If that is so, if it would be a mere idle proposition, one that would not commend itself to anybody, not in the 1st place to Congress itself, and in the 2nd place not to the States themselves, should we e acting like practical and sensible men to throw every thing else aside and put this question upon that alone? Whatever i might think ofit, the committee thought otherwise, and that proposition therefore is not before the Senate. Laying, then, that out of the question, there are but 2 propositions to be considered: one is whether you will base representation on vot ers, either voters generall or citizens who are voters; and the other is the proposition which is before the Senate. I suppose that the ropposition to base representation upon actua voters would commend itself to the ouorable Senfrom Massachusetts. I believe I have in my desk a proposition he made to amend the constitution, at was laid before the Senate so early in the session that the bell which called us together had hardly truck its last note before it was laid upon the table, in which he proposed that the representation of the U.S. should be based upon voters. Let me ask him if that does notleave in the hands of the States the same power that exists there now and has existed heretofore. What is the difference in fact? The slave States, unless prevented in some other wa, might just provide that no person who is o a certain color or a certain race shall vote; and then it would have precisely the same effect that this proposition has in substance. How does the Senator find this so objectionable and that so suitable to accomplish the purposes which he desires to accomplish? The proposition came from him of course itmet his approval; of course he would desire to make it a part of the constitution of the U.S. Ii hat was the object? The object was precisely the same that we have here; and that is to limit the representation according to the extent of the suffrage, and in that way to hold out an inducement to the states to extend their classes of voters as far as possible in order to increase their political power. Was there anything else in it than that? If there was nothing else in it than that, is not this the same proposition so far as that particular point goes? The power exists now and will continue to exist unless it can be taken away by a stat ute, and of that I shall speak by and by. The power exists now at the present time inv all those States to make just such class or caste distinctions as they please. The constitution does not limit them; the constitution in terms gives us no power; it leaves to the States, as everybody knows, the perfect authority to reg ulate this matter of suffrage to suit themselves. What was the object of the honorable Senator when he offered that amendment? Was it not. to limit thatnot by law, but by simply holding out an inducement to the States which were recently slave States to extend the suffrage to the colored race and to all races for the sake of the political power which it would give? and yet in the beginning of his speech he talked of this proiosition as another compromise with slavery. If this was a compromise so was that, for it did not profess to move an inch toward accomplishing the purposes which he and all others have so much at heart.