Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, the discussion of this bill has been length and the arguments have been ample. I should not feel it necessary at this time to occupy the attention of the on the subject, but for the fact that my native State, during the course of this debate, has been alluded to. My colleague from the 4th district [Mr. KELLEY] has stated to you here that prior to 1838 negroes were allowed the privilege of the elective franchise in the State of Pennsylvania. The gentleman has told the truth in that particular, but he has failed to tell the whole truth. Sir, is he not aware that a judicial decision has been made in Pennsylvania upon this very point? Pennsylvania abolished slavery on the 1st of March, 1780, and ever since that period her legislation has tended to ameliorate the condition of that race; but at the same time her legislation, and the position of in that State, have uniformly recognize a distinction between the 2 races. Our constitution of 1790 contained the word “ free men, ” and under that provision of the constitution, negroes claimed the right to vote in Pennsylvania and I believe it is well authenticated that they did vote. But, sir at the October election in 1835, in the county of Luzerne, a negro applied to vote; the inspectors of the election conducting the polls denied him the right to vote, and his vote was rejected, whereupon a suit was instituted and a decision then in his favor in the lower court, and that decision was overruled by the supreme court in 1837. The opinion was delivered by Chief Justice Gibson, and his opinions are fully known to every lawyer in this house; he stands as a jurist at the head. The opinion of the court was unanimous, concurred in by 4 other gentlemen of almost equal talent and reputation with himself. The question upon the word “free man, ” whether it meant a citizen and entitled him to vote. That decision of the court, while it was unanimous, was also clear on the point of declaring that the word “free man” meant white men and not black men, and that consequently black men were not entitled to vote under the constitution of 1700. The question was further agitated until a convention met in January, 1838. My distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania, [ the chairman of the ComAppropriat, was a member of that convention, and if I misstate anything that there occurred he can correct in. This question was agitated there, and in order to set the matter at rest and have no further equivocal language in the constitution, the word “white” was inserted by a vote of nearly 2/3rds after a length and one of the most intellectual discussions that has ever taken place in any public body in Pennsylvania. So much for the r1ght of the negro to vote in Pennsylvania. I t ought it necessary, in answer to the statement of my colleague that negros voted in Pennsylvania, to give the true an correct history, both judicial and political. My colleague stated further that it was the Democratic party which adopted that amendment to the constitution and deprived the negro of the right to vote in that convention. I am glad to say, from my reading and from my associations with the party, that the Democratic party of Pennsylvania have uniformly been against extending the right of suffrage to the negro race.