Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. President, this amendment, in my judgment, opens a very grave question; a question graver than it appears at the blush;aquestion upon which the ablest minds are divided here and elsewhere; a question, however, upon which we are called upon to vote, and therefore one upon which I desire very briefly to state the views which control my judgment when I say that I shall vote against the amendment which is now offered. I'or myself, sir, after giving some considerable reflection to the subject of suffrage, I have arrived at the conclusion that the true base or foundation upon which to rest suffrage in any republican community is upon the family, the head of the family; because in civilized society the family is the unit, not the individual. What is meant by “man” is man in that relation where he is placed according to nature, to reason, and religion. If it, were a new question and it were left to me to determine what should be the true qualification of a person to exercise the right. suffrage, I would fix it upon that basis that the head of a family, capable of supporting that family, and who had supported the family, should be permitted to vote, and no other. While I know that the question is not a new one; while it is impossible for me to treat it as a new question because suffrage everywhere has been extended beyond the heads of fami lies, yet the reason, in my judgment, upon which it has been extended is simply this: if certain men have been permitted to vote who were not the heads of families it was because they were the exceptions to the general rule, and because it was to be presumed that if they were not at the time heads of families they ought to be, and probably would be. I say that according to reason, nature, and religion, the family is the unit of human society. So Oh, no; let us have a far as the ballot is concerned, in my judgment it represents this fundamental element of civil;ized society, the family. It therefore should be cast by the head of the family, and according to reason, nature, and religion man is the head of the family. In that relation, while every man is king, every woman is queen; but upon him devolves the responsibility of conrolling the external relations of his family, and those external relations are controlled by the ballot; for that ballot or vote which he exercises goes to choose the legislators who are to make the laws which are to govern society. Within the family man is supreme; he governs by the law of the family, by the law of reason, nature, religion. Therefore it is that I am not in favor of conferring the right of suffrage upon woman. Now, Mr. President, one word further on the subject of suffrage as it concerns the other races. We are Caucasians and represent that race. From history, from our education, from our experience, every man of full age of the Caucasian race in this country, as a general rule, is competent. The Indians, the Africans, the Mongolians, the Asiatics in this country, from their history, from their position, are incom{. " as a general rule, the exceptions onlying competent. We may as well speak the truth on this question. When a man tells me that the Indians, for instance, of the States and Territories are competent to exercise this great right of suffrage, he tells me what I certainly cannot be made to believe; what, it seems to me, it is impossible for any man in his senses to believe. When a man tells me that the Africans in this country just set free on the plantations I now speak of them as a mass; I do not speak of the exceptional cases: there are a great many colored men of intelligence and character and standing who are perfectly competent to exercise the right but when a man tells me that as a mass these men just set free are competent to exercise the right of suffrage and help to shape the laws of this great Republic, he states what is perfectly abhorrent to my sense of justice, reason, or propriety. Sir, it would be a burlesque on republican institutions, and we should make ourselves the laughing stock of the world by doing any such thing. To say that 3 or 4 million slaves. who have just been set free from a bondage of 200 years in this country, and who in the country from which they came were descended from a race and from a position the most degraded on the face of the earth, are educated, that they are experienced, that they are in condition now, the moment their shackles are stricken off, to exercise this high right of franchise, is contrary to reason, in my judgment. It seems to me perfectly impossible that they can be competent. There are some exceptions, and if you could frame a law so as to meet the exceptional cases it would be right, here in the District, or, if any State could do it, elsewhere. It is just so with the Asiatics over in California. What kind of a spectacle would it be if the seventy or 80,000 Chinamen there, who know nothing of our republican institutions, who can know nothing of them at present, were Woo." to exercise this right of suffrage? Will it be contended that the Indians of the Territories and the States (with exceptional cases, it is true, which might be provided for by the laws of those States) are competent to exercise the right of franchise? It is impossible that it should be so in the nature of things. While I do not object to laws here or else. where that may provide for the exceptional cases and that would admit to the right of franchise in this District those colored men who are competent; while a law providing for that would meet my approbation, I think that to confer universal manhood suffrage in this District into which freedmen from all the States can flock adlibitum, without restriction, is dangerous. It seems to me that we are wild when we talk of such a thing or imagine that the American people have passed judgment in favor of anything like that. Had you proposed a thing like that before the last election and made that an issue in the canvass you would have found a very different verdict. That issue was avoided everywhere. The idea of universal negro suffrage as the basis of reconstruction was avoided in every State in the Union. Possibly in massachusetts it was not; I am not so sure about that; but in every State where there was any fear of losing the election this question was not raised; and for our friends to stand up now and say that the judgment of the people has been declared in favor of universal negro suffrage to be imposed upon the South as the basis of reconstruction is all folly. It was not contained in the constitutional amendment, which was made the basis or claimed to be made the basis upon which the election was carried. Mr. President, I have stated very briefly that I shall not be able to vote for the proposition of my honorable friendfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. CowAN] I shall not be able to vote for this bill if it be a bill to give universal suffrage to the colored men in this District without any restriction or qualification. I have been in formed that some other Senator intends before this bill shall have passed in the Senate to propose an amendment which will attach a qualification, and perhaps, should that meet the views of the Senate, I might give my support to the bill. I shall not detain the Senate further now on this subject.