d by a prejudice as regards
ignorance. But here is the difference: under the amendment that I
propose, while Indiana excludes the black man from the right to
participate in the decisions of the ballot-box, she does not ask that
the black man shall be represented on this floor. On the contrary,
while Massachusetts excludes black and white persons who can not read
and write, she yet asks that that population excluded from the ballot
shall have representation on this floor. I regard this as wrong in
theory, wrong in principle, and injurious to the State which I have
the honor to represent, giving to Massachusetts a power upon this
floor of which my State is deprived. Why? Because the exclusion which
drives from the ballot-box in Massachusetts a large portion of her
citizens, yet admits them to representative power on this floor."

Mr. Orth's amendment proposed that Representatives should "be
apportioned among the several States according to the number of male
citizens over twenty-one years of age, having the qualifications
requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State
Legislature." There being objection to the reception of this amendment
under the rules of the House, it could not be considered.

Mr. Chanler, of New York, alluding to Mr. Stevens' desire to have the
joint resolution passed on the day of its introduction, before the sun
went down, said: "Sir, this measure, if passed, will tend to obscure
the sun from which the liberties of this country derive their
nourishment and life, the brilliant orb, the Constitution, whose light
has spread itself to the farthest ends of the earth. The vital
principle of that Constitution, the soul of its being, is that balance
of power between the States which insures individual liberty to every
citizen of each State, and harmony among all the States of the Union.

"I affirm, sir, that the discussion of this subject in the
Constitutional Convention of 1787 was conducted in a spirit worthy of
a great people, and resulted in the noble instrument under whose
authority we now live. That era furnishes us a sad comparison with the
present epoch, when it may well be said that our Rome has 'lost the
breed of noble bloods,' and when, so far as the agitation of these
fanatical and partisan questions is concerned, reason seems to have
'fled to brutish beasts.' How differently and with what wise
moderation did the framers of the Constitution act! No narrow and
fanatical partisa