Mr. SUMNER. There is a familiar story of a shield with inscriptions on it which was suspended in a highway. 2 travelers approached it from opposite quarters, and staning face to face, each read the inscription as he saw it. it rmghtdway there was a difference and a contes hach insisted that the inscription was as he read it. At last on looking at both sides it was ascertained that each was right, as the inscriptions on the 2 sides were different. So it is on the present occasion. The measure now before the Senate has 2 sides. The Senfrom Maine, as he approaches it, sees only the side which limits the representation. As I approach it I see the recognition of a caste and the disfranchisoment of a race. I think it would be He defends it; I condemn it. But he defends only what he sees. I condemn only what I see. It is the misfortune of the measure that it has 2 sides with 2 opposite inscriptions. This is especially unhappy at this moineut when we are bound to be frank and loyal, and to do nothing which may be interpreted in a double sense. Above all should this be the case with regard to an amendment of the Constitution. But the present proposition does not fall within those conditions. this enough that there are at this moment 2 opposite opinions with renrd to its meaning. ow, sir, it will not be denied that there are opposite opinions on the mcaning of this proposition. he Senfrom Maine aflixes to it one meaning. I aflix to it another. The senator sees nothing bad in it. I see in it nothing good; or, rather, all that it proposes to do is absorbed, merged, and lost in its evil. Against this proposition I am in earnest, and I speak so. What is debate? It is the expression of opinions, conclusions, and convictions on matters before the Senate. These must be expressed fully, freely, and according to the conscience of the speaker. If a measure is deemed to be bad, injurious, pernicious, founded in wrong principles, and calculated to produce infinite mischief, all this must be said; and it must be said with plainness accordin to the nature of the exigency. To this end aiiguage is given. The measure must be exposed. There are no terms to be spared which may be needed in this exiosition, whether to reach the judgment or the cclings. Of course, on this occasionI see on] the subject. But am not alone in my interpretation of this proposition. On] the other day I presented t ie petition of the editor of the Boston recorder, 1n which he was moved to protest ugainstit as “disgraceful, ” inasmuch as it disffanchised a race and offended against the DeclarIndep. I have here papers and testimonies showing how extensively this proposition is so interpreted. Here, for in stance, isa communication from an honored citizen of NewYork, once a member of the other House, one of the Old Guard of Abolitionists, who from the 1st gun at Fort Sumter has seen our duties with a sensitive conscience and a patriotic soul; I mean Mr. Gerritt Smith. Mark, if you please, that I cite his words simply as showing how aningennous nature is touched by this proposition: "I seethat the HoRepapproval and by a very strong vote, the proposeda portionment amendment of the Constitution. see, too, that nearly all the members.who are the mostrad ical friends of freedom, are included in this vote: and that there is. therefore. no room in the casefor questioning motives. Freedom may. however, be wounded unwittingly. Nay, she may be wounded even in the House of her friends. such is her fatsin the present instance and no lessdeep and danger ous is the wound, but.on the contrarya.ll the deeperand dflnfiOlOUbSe, causeinflicted by bands which aimednot to nrm but tohelp her. Moreover. though it is always consoling to be able to trace an error to the understanding. the error may, nevertheless, be quitie MDUTHIClOUaS sif the honrt were involved in it. A disgraceful, if not indeed fatal. blot upon the Constitution and country will bethis one. Disgraceful is it to ii Government to license the gambling house, even though it be on the condition of being paid for the license. Disgriweful to it to license the brothel or the drain shop, even thouIrhon such condition. But how cm hatically disgraceful for a Government to license slavery. that crime of criipas. Even though the consideration in return for the license beyery eat and the pay very tempting. TillS, however, is the cop disgrace with which the apportionment amendment threatens the Constitution and the country." “ It is true that slavery is not literallfyin the amendment. It is truo.too, that prescription from the ballot box does not always mean slavery. But it is also true that. wheresuch proscription is of onerace by another, there is an insuincew ieretho proscribed arccnslaved. The power therelorc.which this aiiicndment will give the southern whites to withhold the ballot from the southern blacks Wlll betheir oworto enslavethem. If they shall withheld from t cmthpI ballot, they will also withhold from them freedom. U i I $ ! C I Q O “ It goesto hinder the identification of the South with the nation. Another and by lar the gravest of all objections is that they whom it leaves unre ire sented.are deeply wronged and cruelly insultt by such an ignoring of their manhood. Whnta mvlzlll aswell as great crime againstthe scores of thonsiin I of black men who took up ilruis to savetho nutilon and without whom it.woiild not have beep HMIM this shutting of them out from representation. 1 reply that they would gain nothing by being represenstaet dissfaocltoonry graespltyh!eyFohravwehnoobtutthtehebanlalotito?n i sMroest sponsiblefor their not haying it? Who but the conqueror shall decidewhat is due to the brawp men who so cssentiully hclped to make him conuoror? Surely. it is ine t foDr theI ir anI d hiis eneOmieisto iecideI it." I “ Unrepresentedthough the southern negrowill be he will not be left untnxed, and this they understand full well who favor the amendment which permits this oppression. Our revolutionary fathersfelt that taxation without representation wasjust cause for war. But in this amendment their degeneratesons open wide the door for the perpetration of this flagrant iu justice jracisnaoc “How idle the hope. so often expressed that the tendency of things at the South Will be such as, after a very few ears.to give her blacks access to the bol lot box. just the reversewill be this tendency. The indisposition to do them justice will he constantly increasedb the exercise of ahsolute power over thein. This amendment udo ted, and they will never get suffrage, until a blue y revolution shall bring it to them. The nation still uncured, even by the very hor rid war from which she has Just emerged, of her pride of race on the one hand and her contempt and hatred otofrdarcieft oonn the war tdhearn, omthuesrta. nI dstervoenngslyt illcamr, ocroenhtoinrruide war a war of raecs." “ Th t the Republican part was demoralized by this great mistake of the Presii cut is but too clear by this disastrous vote of the HoRep on the apportionment amendment. ad the President entereduion his high otheewith the conviction burning in is soul, that a mans a man. however conditioned or colored, no such amendment nor anything in its place short of the instant denian for negrosutfragewould have been so much asthought of." “I do not forget that the amendment in question is claimed to be a protest against the caste spirit. Sufficient, however, for its nttercoridemnation is the fact that instead of prohibiting it permits the indulgence of this accursed. I have spokcn of the crushing effect of this amendment on the neg ro. Well nigh as crushing will it be on the white Unionist at the South. Ilis protection, aswellas the negros, until the reathattle day comes could be only in the negros allot. Hence he Will retreat to the North unlesshe shall elect to stay and fight by the negrosside." “I notice that a common excuse among the friends of freedom for favoring this apportionment amendment is that we can get nothing better. I know not how that may be. But I do know that we can get nothing mac i worse; and that it would be far better to get nothing than to get this." I have also presented to the Senate the petition of george.Downing, FrederickDoug ass, and others, representing the colored race in ii ashington, in which they give their opinion of this proposition. They protest against its adoption as operating disfrauchisement on account of race or color. They pray Congress “To favor no amendment of the Constitution of the U.S. which will grant or allow anyone or all of the Statesof this Union to disfranchise any class of citizens on the ground of race or color.” They then proceed to say that “In the Constitution, as it nowstands, there is not a sentencenorsyllableconveing anyshadowof right or authority by which any State may make color or race a disqualification for the exerciseof the right oi suffrage: and the undersignedWill regardasa real cbayliammpiltiycathtieonin, tgriovdinugctaionny of any words, expresslyor Stateor States such power; and we respectfully submit that if the amendment now pspdingshall be adopted it will enable any state tail)1 CEDJIYO any class of citizens of the elective franchise. such is the testimony of these very intelli gent representatives of colored persons. They speak With a peculiar authority from the interest which they necessarily have in the question. They speak for the freedmen. Mr. President, I do not wish to argue the main question again. I have said enoug. The Senator has reminded you several times how much. I am sorry to have trespassed so often and so long. I will not trespass now. Of course there is a radical difference between the Senator and myself. We see opposite things when we look at this proposition and permit me to say we see opposite things when we look at the Constitution itself. I cannot accept his interpretation. I do not believe that under the Constitution even as it exists the disfranchisement of a considerable portion of fellow citizens is consuitent With a republican government. Silll further, I do not believe tha “color” can b1 u.“qualificatipu” for an elector. He does. A nd here is a pouit of divergence which carries us far apart. 1 have listened to all that has been said. But the proposition is to me as obuoxious as ever. I“ cannot see it otherWise. Feeling that Caste and Disfmnchisenient on account of color or utterly irreligious, flagitious, and unrepublican, you must. pardon me if I exert myself to prevent their introduction in the Constitution O my country, especially at a moment when we are under such obligations of gratitude to these out casts, and when injustice to them is so full of peril to the Republic. I haVe spoken strongly; you will pardon it to the ardor of my nature and to the strength of my convictions. I have fought a long battle with slavery, and I confess my solicitude when I see anything that looks like concession to it. It is not enough to show me that a measure is expedient; you must show me also that it is right. Ah! sir, can anything be expedient which is not right? From the beginning of our history the country has been afilicted with comremise. It is by compromisc that Human rights have been abandoned. I insist that this shall cease. The country needs repose after all its trials; it deserves repose and repose can only be found in everlasting principles. It cannot be found by inserting in your Constitution the disfranchisement of a race. This proposition can be fully appreciated only when it is considered as the offering of Congress at this time for the protection of those to whom we are under obligations of gratitude. This is our panacea, our Balm of Gilead for them. This is what we are asked to do and the Senate has been warned not to give the protection found in the elective franchise eit or by constitutional amendment or by act of congress; that such a constitutional amendment would not be adopted by the people, and, therefore, we ought not to present it; and that Congress has not the power to destroy inequality in political rights. Sir, I do not despair of the Republic; I will not; I cannot. But if ever I were disposed to despair it would be when listening to such arguments and excuses. The people are in advance of us and will sustain us if we are courageous. They will adopt any constitutional amendment that ought to he adopted. They will adopt anything that is true, just, and noble for the protection of hen efactors and to carry out the principles of our Government. They will sustain any legislation having the same object. This is what they expect. ltis what the freedmen expect. It is what the Unionists of the South expect. They do not wish to be surrendered to the tender mercies of the rebels. They askCongress to protect them and they see that this can be done only by giving the ballot to the freedmen. I have in my hand a letter from a Unionsist of Alabama addressed to another and received only yesterday, dated February 25, and written in the very heart of Alabama, who thus speaks of this very question: “All men of common sense must now see that there can now be no loyal civil governmentsin theseStates if the legroes are not crmitted to neutralize with their votes the votesofre els. On this account I do hope the hint resolution recently introduced in the Senate by Mr. Scum m Wlll Dl6 V8 ll.Whatever may have been our former notions in regard to the negro, it is now very evident that practically they are better citizens than the majority of whites in some portion of tishe 3 btreule State sJu. stThbeasDiseucplaornawtihoinch of the State governments must be founded.” such is the voice of a Unionist of Alabama. He looks to Congress. God forbid that congress should abdicate its benclicent powers. hey are all needed for the safety and welfare of the Republic. I cannot, I dare not help in any such abdication.