ld
lose three."

On the following day, January 23d, the proposed joint resolution came
up in the regular order of business.

Mr. Jenckes, of Rhode Island, feared that a construction might be put
upon the bill which would be fatal to its efficiency for the purposes
had in view by its friends. He said: "It says nothing about the
qualification of property. Suppose this amendment is adopted by
three-fourths of the States, and becomes a part of the fundamental law
of the land, and after its adoption the State of South Carolina should
reinstate the constitution of 1790, striking out the word 'white' and
reestablishing the property qualification of fifty acres of land, or
town lots, or the payment of a tax, there would then be no
discrimination of color in the State of South Carolina, yet the number
of electors would not be enlarged five hundred, and the basis of
representation would be exactly as it is, with the addition of
two-fifths of the enfranchised freedmen. A Representative to this
House would be reelected by the same voting constituency as now,
perhaps with the addition of five hundred black men in the State. If
it bears this construction, and I believe it does, I shall vote
against it.

"If any of the States should establish property qualification based
upon lands, then the same oligarchy would be enthroned on the whole
basis of representation, entitled to a larger number of
Representatives than now in this House, and elected by a slightly
enlarged number of qualified electors, giving power more firmly to
that very aristocracy we have sought to overthrow."

A number of queries were propounded, several amendments proposed, and
a considerable desire for discussion expressed, until Mr. Stevens,
much disappointed at the reception the measure met in the House,
withdrew the demand for the previous question, and left the subject
open for unlimited debate.

Mr. Blaine, of Maine, addressed the House, detailing some objections
to the measure. He said: "While I shall vote for the proposition, I
shall do so with some reluctance unless it is amended, and I do not
regret, therefore, that the previous question was not sustained. I am
egotistic enough to believe that the phraseology of the original
resolution, as introduced by me, was better than that employed in the
pending amendment. The phrase 'civil or political rights or
privileges,' which I employed, is broader and more comprehensive than
the term 'elective franchise,'