Mr. FESSENDEN. My friendfrom Iowa [Mr. GRIMES] suggests an inquiry, how does the Senator know but that this proposition will be followed by legislation? How does he know what has been the consultation of the committee or what the committee propose to do? The question is, how far is it good, and no further. Now sir, I am not speaking of the words, but am speaking of the effect of the 2 on the question under consideration. The act of limiting it to voters, is simply to leave the owner where it is, and leave it perfectly in the power of the States to regulate suffrage as they please. The proposition submitted by the committee goes that whole length. It leaves the power where it is; but it tells them most distinctly, if on exercise that power wrongful, such and such consciences will follow. how far that shall be an argument I will speak of by and by. What objection is there to basing representation upon voters? and here again I beg leave to state the views of the committee on that subject. There are several objections. In the 1st place, we naturally become a the head to that to which we are accustomed especial if it is well founded in principle, and agreeable to us in all ordinary respects. The principle of the constitution, with regard to re, is that it shall be founded on population; that the people who are voters, malls of 21. years of age, (as has been the ordinary construction) are not the whole people of a State; and when a State has representation, the representatives, whoever they may be, do not consider themselves as representing males over 21 years of age alone, but as representing:11, those under age as well as those over age, females as well as males. I do not know how the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts feels, but I could hardly stand here I If did not suppose I was representing the of my State., Laughter] I know, or I fancy I know, that I have received considerable support from some of them, not exactly in the way of voting,but in influencing voters. [Laughter]. As I have said, we are attached to that idea, that the whole population is represented; that although all do not vote, yet all are heard. That is the idea of the constitution. other objection to basing representation upon voters is that it would be unequal. I have not taken the trouble to search the tables and see how far that inequality would o, what State it would operate in favor of an what State it would operate against; but we all know very well that it must necessarily operate most in favor of the new States, and the newer the State the stronger would be the operation, because the newer the State is the greater is its proportion of males over 21 cars of age and legal voters. We, of the oltIStates, are not of opinion that the new States, made up as they are in the beginnin, are any better able to conduct the affairs of government than we are ourselves. We are willing to concede to them equality, butnot superiority. It would, therefore, as I have said, and as has been argued because this matter has been thoroughly discussed in the other House, and is perfectly familiar to everybody produce an inequality,and a very considerable and striking one, so far as some of the States are concerned. But again, it would hold out an inducement But an to run the ballot to an unreasonable extent. A State being possessed of political power, natu rally desiring more, might look around to see how it could make itself equal with another State and thus might extend its franchise; and the other might see that it is likely to be over balanced, and extend its franchise in the some way, and perhaps the result might be an unseemly race between States to increase their political power by increasing the number of their voters. Therefore, if you propose to do anything of that sort, you must limit your selves, make your provision, and say how far it shall go. It would operate badly, the committee thought, in some other particulars. Take, for instance , the State of Missouri. I understand thatin that State rebels have been disfranchised, substanti ally; they are not allowed to vote. That may be a necessary and wise policy there. I am certain it would be. wise to do it in a number of other States. Will you cut off from those States the power to do so? No, you do not cut off the power; but do you wish to hold out an inducement to them to repeal their law or to change their constitution s, if it is a constitutional provision, and allow rebels to vote, because you punish them with the loss of political power unless they do so? I do not know but that it would lead to a repeal of the test oath and certain registry laws and a great many things of that description, which are very beneficial safe guards with regard to the clective franchise any where and everywhere. These in general were the objections which the committee had to basing this amendment of the constitution, or this limitation, or whatever you may call it, upon voters; and if you extend it to citizens, or narrow it to citizens, you make it worse so far as many of the States are concerned; for my honorable friends from the Pacific coast, where there is a large number of foreigners, would hardly be willing to have them cutoff; and they have no benefit of political power in the legislation of the count arising mm the number of those foreigners who make a portion of their population. he difficulty is that you meet with) troubles of this kind every where the moment you depart from the principle of basing representation upon population and population alone. You meet with inequal ities, with difficulties, with troubles, either in one section of the country or the other, and you are inevitably thrown back upon the original principle of the constitution. Thatis the idea of the committee. How far the committee is right about it, and how far the views which I have submitted, and which presented themselves to them, may be considered as after all ofvery small account in the consideration of a question so important. It is for the Senate to judge. Then, sir, when we get beyond that, there is only one prosition left, and that is the ropposition which the committee has adopted and recommended to Congress:. I will read it: Aarrcmr. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union accordinxt their respective numbers, counting the whole nnmqberof persopsin each State, excludlng Indians not taxed: Provided. That whenever the elective franchise shall be denied or abridged in any State on account of race or color, all persons therein of such race or color shall be excluded from the basisof representation. It will be noticed that the amendmentwhich we have thus presented has one good quality: it reserves the original basis of representation; iteaves that matter precisely where the constitution placed itin the 1st instance; it makes no changes in that respect; itviolates no prejudice; it violates no feeling. Every State is represented according to its population with this distinction: that if a State says that it has a portion, a class, which is not fit to be represented and it is for the State to decideit shall not be represented; that is all. It has another good point: it is equalin its operation; all persons in every State are to be counted; nobody is to be rejected. With the very trillin exception fixed by the original constitution, afi races, colors, nations, languages, and denomi nations form the basis. But, sir, the great excellence of itand I think it is an excellenceis, that it accomplishes indirectly what we may not have the power to accomplish directly. If we cannot put into the constitution, owing to existing prejudices and existing institutions, an entire exclusion of all class distinctions, the next question is, can we accomplish that work in any other way? I I am one of those who have always thought it was better to governmentn by their own convictions of their own interests than by force. Even if we had the power to pass the other resolution, I am by no means certain that all the good we expect from it would follow, although it meets my wishes and my views. But here we are; the constitution as it stands says that all persons shall be counted in order to form a basis of representation. We propose to alter that, apd we propose to alter it in order to avoid a great evil and accomplish a great good. In attempting to make that alteration, we naturally inquire as to our power, what can we do? The opinion is that what I have specified cannot be one. The thing cannot be done in that way. The question then is, can it be done in any way, and if in any way, if any amendment to the constitution would be acceptable to the people which has a tendency to accomplish the great result that we aim at, and is not in itself otherwise objectionable, why not take that? As I look at it we ought to be practical. I do not think it my duty as a legislator in this Hall to trouble myself much about what are called abstractions. My constituents did not send me here to philosophize. They sent me here to act, to find out, if I could, what is best for the good of the whole, and to do it, and they are not so shortsighted as to resolve that if they cannot do what they would, therefore they will do nothing. Then let us look and see if this proposition which we have advanced to you has not a tendency to produce the great result that we wish to accomplish. speak to our friends, not to those who are opposed to all efforts of this kind. I speak to those who are willing to do something. Sir, it says to these people, to all people mind you, that all men should be equal; it says to all the peeple of the U.S., ” You shall be represented in Congress, but as we fear that you may be governed by narrow views, as we fearthat you will do injustice to a portion of the people under your charge, and that you will not carry out the great principles which lie at the foundation of the constitution itself, and of all free and republican government, as was so eloquently shown by the honorable Senfrom assachusetts yesterday, We say to you that you shall not have political power any further than you show by your action that you are disposed to let all under your charge participate in it.” Is not that a great principle? Is it not worth something by way of inducement? Is it a “mean compromise, ” for so it was denominatedthat the committee of 15 and the HoRep when they passed it placed themselves in the situation of pontius pilate, with the negro for the Saviour of the world and the people of the U.S. for Barabbas, as csi noted by the honorable Senator. Why, sir, expected to hear him in the next breath o further than that and say that what with the constitution of the U.S and the constitutions of the States the negro had been crucified, and that now by the amendment to the constitution the stone had been rolled own from the door of his sepulcher, and he ha ascended to sit on the throne of the Almighty and judge the world. One would have been, permit me to say with all respect, in as good taste as the other. Now, sir, we propose this, and what does it lead to? Men love political power; they do notpart with it easily; they love to increase it. Having a little, they are ready to grasp more, If this is the case, have we not done something if this amendment is passed, to say to men, “Your political power shall be in exact proportion to your action in the right direction?” We say it not to one people alone, but to all. It cannot be pretended that this is applied to one State an not to another State. Vhat would be the natural consequence? I have faith in the good sense of men. Those who were slaves are now free. It is naturally a sore subject to those who once owned them. In time that soreness and rawness will be healed and worn away, and men will begin to look about them and ask themselves, ” Is it an object for us now to keep so large a portion of our population ignorant, stupid, untto vote, and at the same time take out of our own hands and deprive ourselves of the power they would give us in the Union of the U.S.? not rather educate it? Shall we not rather increase our own political power, raise ourselves to a level with those States which have the same population with ourselves?" Is it not natural to suppose that that would be the ordinary result, not immediately, but in the course of time? If it would be, the resolution has something to recommend it it commends itself to me, not being all I would ask for, but much that could be gained, and if I can get no more I am most happy to take that, unless, indeed, it is attended with the effects su Senfrom Massachusetts. If believed his view to be correct I would vote against the propobsuittioanr. e the 2 points that he makes? because having considered the advantages of the proposition, it remains to consider the objections. One of them is the objection stated in the petition which I have read this morning, substantially that it takes away the power from Congress to legislate upon the subject, which war it has now.