Mr. SHERMAN. I shalldct ain the Senate but for a moment to explain the reasons for the vote I shall give in opposition to what is my own deliberate judgment. on the question now pending. The more I think of this question the more I am convinced that the true basis of representation in the present condition of affairs is the number of male citizens who under the laws of the States are allowed to vote. This proposition, it seems to me, is a simple one, plain and obvious, which puts a citizen in one State on a footing of precise equality with a citizen in every other State, which equalizes the political power of all citizens, and which will destroy all sectional an imosity. If this amendment be adopted, a citizen of the State of Ohio has precisely the same political power with a citizen of the State of massacliusetts or ofSCarolina, no more and no less. The same number would be required in each State to elect a member of Con' gress. The number'of citizens could be easily ascertained by the census, and the census rolls could be attested very readily at each annual election. This proposition is simple, plain, and obvious; and yet under the necessit in which we are now placed I shall feel ca led upon to vote against it. My reason for this I will briefly state. In myjudgment some change ought to be made in the basis of representation. The condition of the negro population in the southern States now deprived of all political power, is such that to give to the white people of those States the right to vote for the negro population and represent them is to give them an undue advantage, one which we could not justify even if they had not been in rebellion. There is no reason why the white citizens of SCarolina should vote the political power of a class of people whom they say are entirely unfitto vote for themselves. If there is any portion of the people of this country who are unfit to vote tgr themselves, their neighbors ought not to vote for them. The plain and obviousprinciple of representation is that every voter should vote for iimself, and for no one else; those who have not the right to vote should be represented by the majority of the votin population, and not by their immediate neiglhiiors. There is no reason, for instance , why because the State of Massachusetts has a pre ponderanceofwomen avoter in Massachusetts should count more than a voter somewhere else. There is no reason why, because in the city of NewYork there isa very large element of unnaturalized foreigners, a voter in the city of NewYork should‘have more political power than a voter anywhere else. There is no reason why, because a white man lives in the South, where they have a large mass of negro population, a white man in the South should have more political power than awhite man in Ohio. There is no reason why, because in Ohio we have a greater proportion of voters to our population than they have in other States, we should be deprived of political power. The truth is that every man who has the right to vote should be counted one, and the aggregate of votes should then be divided by the proper number of Representatives in the politieal body the HoRep in order to arrive at a true and correct apportionment. That is a plain and obvious principle, and if that principle was adopted the southern States would feel no local jealousy. They could not feel any. No State and no community would have the right to comlain. The laws of the U.S. would fix the naturalization of the foreigner; birth would fix the citizenship of the native; there could be no controversy. Then every citizen would stand equal before the law, with precisely the same political power, no more and] no less. I say, therefore, that this is the only amendment to the propositions now submitted to as that l desire to make; but I feel bound by the action of my political friends to vote against this amendment. I place my vote distinctly on this ground: here are propositions upon the details of which men would naturally differ, and it was therefore necessary for those who intended to support the mass of the propositions to confer together and a ree upon those. which they could support. There must be at some point of every controversy of this kind some surrender of individual opinion. Although my opinion is as clear as it can be upon any subject that this amendment is right in itself, both branches of it, yet as we were compelled to unite on some measure and we must all yield some of ouropinions upon various questions involved there are 5 sections in tiis proosed article I feel bound to vote against this amendment offered by the Senfrom Wisconsin, though in my judgment it would do more than any other to heal the dim ciilties by which we are surrounded. A majority of those who will an ort the propositions on which we are to stand, iielieve that the measure in the she c in which it is before us is the wisest, an I am bound on that question to defer my own opinion to that majority who differ from me in order to secure the passage of this resolution. I am the more reconciled to this course because next to the proposition now submitted I think the present is the best that has ever been offered. Next to the simple, plain proosition of basing representation upon voters, tesection before us is the best. It does recognize the equity of the rule I havementioned. It bases representation uponulation, and fpop it excludes representation or a class of people that have no political power; but it stops short of the logical sequence of the principle. It endeavors to save representation for certain portions of our country where they have a population whom they deprive of the right to vote; but it deprives the South of representation for a pepulation which has no right to vote. It is therefore to some extent unjust, and yet it is more just than any other reposition which has been submitted to us. Ii‘or instance, the reposition which I voted for some 2 or t ree months ago, reported by the ComReconstruction, proposed that if the South excluded any portion of the negro poulation from voting the effect should be to exc ude the whole mass of that population from representation. This proposition is better than t at. It is indeed better than any other except the simple, logical proposition of basing representation upon voters. While I do not and cannot surrender my individual opinion on this subject, I shall vote a aiiist the amendment of the Senfrom Wisconsin simply because it is necessary to have an end to this controversy, and those who are expected to carry these propositions before the eo le must agree upon some plat form, an Icoose to stand b that which has been agreed upon by those who are expected to vote for some amendments to the Constitution. All those who believe thatamendments ought to be ado ted must confer among themselves and gett 0 best proosition upon which the can agree, and then they must abide by it an stand by it. Although my friendfrom Indiana [ML HENDRICKS] may saythat that is the result of a caucus, let me tell him that he has submitted to such aresult 100times, and would do it s in. I would always rather submit to the deli crate judgment of n. majority of those with whom I not than to seek the aid of my political opponents, uniting with a minority o my friends to make a platform that nobodv would be satisfied with.