Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, in the remarks which I am about to make I shall address myself, 1st, to the consideration of the resolution immediately before the Senate in order to ascertain its exact meaning; 2ndly, the supposed necessity which calls for such an amendment; and 3rdly, its effect upon the condition of the country. In this, as in every other case upon which human judgment is to be exercised, it is very important that we should distinctly understand whrat the measure under consideration is. The honorable chairman of the committee, the Senfrom Maine, has, if I understood him correctly, done nothingmore than state the difference between the resolution as it was originally reported by the committee, and as upon a recommitment it was subsequently amended. It is the amendment which was made upon that recommitment that is now before the Senate. What, then, is the meaning of the resolution as it now stands? The 2nd section of the 1st article of the constitution regulates the mode in which representation and taxation are to be ascertained, and it makes both to depend upon the same facts. Representation is to be apportioned according to numbers. Direct taxation is to be apportioned in the same way. As the resolution was originally reported the committee left them, subject onlyto other changes, to stand in the same condition. Upon the recommitment, the provision originally contained in relation to direct taxation was omitted, and t stands now as a proposition to amend the bonstitution so as to a cot alone the 2nd section of the 1st article of the constitution as it now is, which provides the mode in which the number of Representatives is to be ascer tained. The Senate will remember that that was made to depend exclusively upon numbers, with 2 exceptions. The 1st of the exceptions was, that in ascertaining the numbers which were to regulate the amount of representation, Indians not taxed were to be excluded. The other was, that that portion of the people of the States in which the institution existed, which was held in a condition of slavery, was not to be taken into the estimate to their entire extent, but only to the extent of 3/5ths of the whole; so that, as the constitution now stands, if slavery still existed. the southern States would be entitled to a number of Representatives to be ascertained by ascertaining the number of persons within each State generally, and 2ndly, by debiting the State as against such number with the entire Indian race who were not subject to taxation, and 2/5ths of the persons in such States who were not to be taken into the estimate. Under that mode of ascertaining the representation to which these southern States were entitled, the country, from the time of the adoption of the constitution up to the present moment, excepting onlythe 4 years through which we have so sadly but triumphantly passed, prospered wonderfully. Perhaps law not going too far in saying that in the history of the world no people organized under on form of government ever prospered as inue during the same period, or ever iave prospered as much during tie entire period of their existence, as the people of the U.S. have prospered since 1789, under this particular proVISIOIL That being the case, Mr. President, let me for a moment call the attention of the Senate to the effect of the proposed amendment. The entire amendment, except the proviso, makes no change at all in the corresponding provision in the constitution, except that it omits the provision that 3/5ths only of a certain class of the population is to be considered. The reason for that omission is of course apparent. There are no such persons now in existence in any of the States of the Union who are not entitled to be considered each for himself as a man, and not as property. The provision in relation to the estimation of 3/5ths instead of the whole number was made because there did at that time exist in the States a class of persons whoheld the double capacity of man and property, or, to speak more correctly, who were persons and chattels. There was great difficulty in the Convention in providing for the manner in which, as far as that class of persons was concerned, representation was to be ascertained, and an equal difficulty in ascertaining, as far as they were concerned, how the provision as to taxation was to be made, and they came (for in those days there was no such objection as seems now to be inseparable in the minds of some senators to compromising) to the conclusion that the good of the country demanded that there should be a compromise, and they proposed. as a compromise, the provision as it now stands; and that is, that for the purposes of representation, a person held in slavery or in involuntary servitude shall be esteemed 3/5ths a man and 2/5ths property; and they established the same rule in relation to taxation. Ihcy very wisely concluded that, as it was allimportant that some general rule should be adopted, this was the best rule, because promising more than any other rule to arrive at a just result of ascertaining the number of Representatives and as certaining the quota of taxation. Now, as far as relates to the quota of taxation, or as far as relates to the quota of presentation, the state of things is materiarclp y changed. There are no men, so to speak, who are but 3/5ths men. We all stand upon the same platform. As we came from natures God, we stand together upon an equality as far as relates to human rights, and it was entirely unnecessary, therefore, to change the mode of apportioning representation or of taxation except for some other puarppoosretiownhiineg did not enter into the estimation of the wise and good men by whom the constitution was adopted in recommending this particular provzsion. his amendment. says to the States, “YOil are to be entitled to a number of Representatives in proportion to your numbers”which is all right; that our fathers designed; that they gave; and under that, the count has gone on prosperousl “ butifyon, int e exercise of your right, thin proper to exclude from the privilege of suffrage any portion of the numbers of your population on account of race or color, thatportion is to be taken from the amount of numbers which is to regulate the number of your Representatives; our power in the Government is corresponingly to be decreased.” It does more than that. It not only says that if there be, by State legislation, a distinction on account of race or color in the exercise of the elective franchise, not only shall the number of persons who shall be so excluded from the franchise be deducted from the number of persons which is to ascertain the number of your Representatives, but every man, whether entitled to vote or not by the laws of the State, of whom it may be said that he belongs to a race, and every man who comes under the denomination of color within the limits of the States, is to be deducted from the enumeration. If, therefore, as is done by the State of NewYork, and by several States of the Union, a distinction is made between the right to vote on the part of the colored man and the right to vote on the part of the white man in any way by requiring or the one a qualification not required or the other, the whole of that population in the State of NewYork is to be deducted from the enumeration. Under the constitution and laws of NewYork, if I am not misinformed, no person of color can vote in that State who has not a freehold and an acquired residence. The possession of a freeho d estate by the white voter of NewYork is not required, and there is, therefore, in that State, at this moment, a distinction between the white and the colored race in the exercise of the right of franchise; and this resolution says that if there be any such distinction, then not only are the number of persons of that race who may be entitled to vote because they are freeholders to be deducted from the whole number of persons in the State, but the entire number of the race are to be deducted, and NewYork loses, or may lose, a portion of her representation.