Mr. BOUTWELL. Mr. Speaker, it is recently that onlfi I entertained the purpose to spea at all upon this bill, and it was my expectation to avail myself of the kindness of the chairman of the ComJudiciary to divide with him the time allotted to him by the rules of the House; but I accept the opportunity now presented of speaking before the previous question is demanded, to state certain views I entertain on this subject. I may say, in the beginning, that I am opposed to all dilatory motions upon this bill. I am opposed to the instructions moved by the Gentfrom NewYork, [Mr. HALE] because I see in them no advantage to anybody, and I apprehend from their adoption much evil to the country. It should be borne in mind that when we emancipated the black people we not only relieved ourselves from the institution of slavery, we not only conferred upon them freedom, but we did more, we recognized their manhood which, by the old constitution and the general policy and usage of the country, had been, from the organization of the Government until the emancipation proclamation, denied to all of the enslaved colored people. As a consequence of the recognition of their manhood, certain le sulls follow in accordance with the principles of this Government, and they who believe in this Government are, by necessity, forced to accept those results as a consequence of the policy of emancipation which they have inaugurated and for which they are responsible. Butto say now, having given freedom to them that they shall not enjoy the essential rights an privileges of men, is to abandon the principle of the reclamation of emancipation and tacitly to a mit that the whole emancipation policy is erroneous. It has been suggested that it is premature to demand immediate action upon the question of negro suffrage in the DistCol. I am not personally responsible for the presence of the bill at the present time, but I am responsible for the observation that there never has been a day during a session of Congress since the emancipation proclamation, ay, since the negroes oft is District were emancipated, when it was not the duty of the Government, which by the constitution is intrusted with exclusive jurisdiction in this District, to confer upon the men of this District, without distinction of race or color, the rights and privileges of men. and, therefore, there can be nothing premature in this measure, and leannot see how anyone who supports the proclamation of emancipation, which is a recognition of the manhood of the whole colored peeple of this country, can hesitate as to his duty; and while I make no suggestion as to the duty of other men, I have a clear perception of my own. and, 1st, we are bound to treat the colored people in this District in regard to the matter ofvoting precisely as we treat white people and i do not hesitate to express the o mion that if the question here today were whetiier any qualification should be imposed upon white voters in this District, if they alone were concerned. this House would not, ny, not ten men upon this floor would, consider whether any qualifications should be imposed or not. What are the qualifications suggested? They are 3. 1st and most attractive, service in the Army or Navy of the U.S. I shall have occasion to say ifIdisenss, as Ihope to do, the nature and on n of the right of voting, that there is not the east possible connection between service in the Army and Navy and the exercise of the elective franchise; none whatever. These men have performed service, and I am for dealing justly with them because they have performed service. But I am more anxious to deal justly by them because they are men and when it is remembered that for months and almost for years after the opening of the rebellion we refused to accept the services of colored persons in the armies of the country, it is with an ill grace that we now decline to allow the vote of any man because he has not performed that service. 1866. 309 The 2nd is the property qualification. I hope it is not necessary in this day and this hour of the Republic to argue anywhere that. approperty qualification is not only unjust in itself, but that it is odious to the people of this country to a decree which cannot lie expressed. Everywhere, lIielieve, for halfa century, it. has been repudiated by the people. Does anybody contem. late such a qualification to the exercise of teelective franchise in the case of black people or white? and next, readin and writing, or reading, as a qualification is cmanded and an appeal is made to the example of hfassachusetts. I wish gentlemen who now appeal to Massachusetts would often appeal to her in other matters Where I can more conscientiously approve her policy. But it is a different proposition in Massachusetts as a practical measure. When, ten years ago, this qualification was imposed upon the people of Massachusetts it exc uded no person who was then a voter. hor 2 centuries we have had in Massachusetts a system of public instruction open to the children of the whole)cople without money and without price. Therefbre all the people there had had o por tunities for education. Now, why should the example of such a State be quoted to justify refusing suffrage to men who have been enied the privilege of education, and whom it has been a crime to teach? Is there no difference? I suppose it will happen, even if you pass this reading amendment, that between any 2 ann alelections, any negro 21 years of age in this city, or who may come here, will acquire the ability to read. The requirement will not exclude many men. My objection is, not that in this District it will exclude a great number from the exercise of the elective franchise, but I do object to it as a matter of principle. The right to vote is a higher and better right. than can be derived from the simple fact that a man can read. I have often elsewhere endeavored to trace the origin and nature of the right to vote. I believe that during this discussion the views I entertain have not been stated; and therefore, with such brevity as I can command, I will ven ture to state the opinion I entertain of the na ture and properlimitations of the elective franchise and while it may not be a natural right, like the right of locomotion, like the right to breathe, a natural personal right, still I think I can offer suggestions, deduce from the law of nature, which will show that it is a natural so cial right. I accept as the basis of whatI have to say, the cat law of nature supported by revelation, the existence of the family, from which no people, savage or civilized, has ever escaped. [be family exists by divine authority. It is the 1st law of society, of the community; it is the element of all States, and it has Generally one idea, one opinion, and one will upon all questions affectin the fortunes of the family or of any of its members. Thus the creation of man, and his doings after his creation, illustrate most conclusive y 2 facts the existence of the family and the unity of the will of the family. When we admit that the family is the element of the State, the unit of society, that it has but one will, what follows? That whenever more than one family is in existence, and the question arises what shall be done With reference to the communit of families, then the families are to be consu ted. Hence arises the doctrine that there can be no Just government except by the consent of the governed. What I maintain next is that you have no right to exclude from this consultation anyone of the families, for the moment you do so you violate the principle of the Government. consequently but one voice is needed for the expression of the one will of the family; and the question then arises, whose voice shall it be? Properly, the voice of that one who, if the Government constituted by his a ency and authority be assailed, is to peril his Sifc in its Ilefense. Thus is demonstrated the priority of tight by nuerc"iligives to the man the expression of the voice of the family rather than to the woman or the child. Next, Mr. Speaker, is it not seen that, if these propositions be true, the right to vote exists independently of all human agencyin the sense of law; and t. e doctrine that the right of voting is a conventional right, is not sustained by reason or history. History shows only this, that the limitations upon the exercise of the right of voting are the results of conventions. The natural social right is the right of the famil to speak in all matters which concern the we are of the family as one family in the great society and family of man. This demonstrates, I think, that the negro has everywhere the same right to vote as the white man. when you proceed one step from this line on admit that your Governmentis a failure. I but is the essential quality of monarchical and aris tocratic government? Simply that by conventionalitics, by arrangements of conventions, some persons have been deprived of the right of voting. We have attempted to set up and maintain a Government upon the doctrine of the equality of man, the universal right of all men to participate in the Government. In accordance with that theory we must accept the ballot upon the principle ofequality. It is enjoyed by the learned and the an earned, the wise and the ignorant, the virtuous and the vicious. The great experiment is going on. If, before the war, any man in this country was disposed to undervalue a Government thus conducted, he should have learned by this time the wisdom and the strength of a Government which embraces and embodies the judgment and the will of the whole peole. f the negroes of the South, 4 milion strong, had been endowed with the elective franchise, and had united with the white people of that region in the work of rebellion, your armies would have been powerless to subdue that rebellion, and you would today have seen your territory limited by the Potomac and the Ohio and if, in the North, suffrage had been limited, as it is in GreatBritain, you could not have commanded 2,600,000 volunteers for the defense of the Republic. The unity of sentiment in the loyal States was due to the fact that eve man felt that the Government was his own. lhis only illustrates how stron a Government is when it is founded upon the Judgment and the will of the whole people and how weak it is when founded upon the Judgment and the will of a part. I advance still further. I have said thatI consider this questionas involving other issues than the mere matter of suffrage in the DistCol. I do not conceal my opinion from friend or opponent. I am of those who believe that any restoration ofeither of the 11 States lately engaged in the rebellion to political power in the Government of this country, which is not coupled with or receded by the condition that the negroes of the South are to vote, opens a way to the destruction of this Governmentfrom which there is no escape. I declare, after the gravest deliberation and the calmest reflection, and I say it with sorrow, lookingupon the country, rent by opposite opinions on this question, that, without such a measure as I suggest for the southern States, this Government cannot outlast those who are now in the vigor of man hood. Why and how will it fail? It will fail and fall from the fact that by restoration without this allessential guarantee we put into the hands of our enemies in the South 2 weapons, the blows of which we shall be powerless to parry. One is the assumtion by the Government of a vast and overwhelming weight of indebtedness, to be followed by a foreign war. We see today how difficult it is to restrain and control the people of this country in their desire to take juSTEVENgeance for the wrongs inflicted upon them by England and France. Suppose the power of this Government was intrusted to the hands of the late slaveholders, the men recently engaged in rebellion. Does any man believe that they are restored to their right mind, that they will give and I maintain still further, that. an ardentsnp art to the Government? All the testimony is that they are as alien and hostile to this Government as ever, and that they only seek an opportunity to strike a deadly blow. but opportunity do you give them? They are marshalingtoda in Virginia, in SCarolina, in Louisiana, their claims upon this Government. The will demand 82000,000,000 for slaves, untold 100s of millions of dollars for depredations committed by our armies. An aggregate of 1,000s of millions of claims, or demands having the color of claims, will lie marshaled against the Government; and you invite 60 Representatives, united, bound togetherby the tics of interest and of ancient and unrelenting hostility, to enforce these claims“. This Congress, no doubt, is incorruptible; but when there are claims against the Government to the amount of $8,000,000,000, with the support that such representatives may afford, 22 in the Senate and 60 in this Hons with all the influence of this immense deman against the Government, do you expect to resist them? Do you expect to meet them with a paper blockade, constitutional amendments? I that is your expectation, your expectation will not be realized; and when they have in volved the country in an indebtedness of 4,5, or 6,000 million dollars, when they have broken your credit so that in the markets of the world your paper will sell for 50 cents on the dollar, and, taing advantage of the just and natural hostility of the people against Euro pean a gression, they invo 12you in a foreign war what have they to do but to march out of the Hnion and bid you defiance?