Of what particular use it is as a bill, practically, is more than I can tell.

I presume the Honorable Senator from Massachusetts will very easily explain it, but it reminds me (I say it with all due respect to him) of a political travesty of a law argument by an eminent lawyer of his own State, running somewhat in this way;-- 'Let my opponents do their worst, Still my first point is point the first, Which fully proves my case, because, All statute laws are statute laws.' The _sequitur_ is obvious,--the case is proved because, inasmuch as the Constitution provides that there shall be no aristocracy, no oligarchy, no monopoly, therefore Congress has resolved that there shall not be any thing of the kind." Mr.Fessenden would not admit the essential justice of the argument which Mr.Sumner made in behalf of universal suffrage, and showed that he was not consistent in the ground which he took.

"While," said he, "the Honorable Senator from Massachusetts argued with great force that every man should have the right of suffrage, his argument, connected with the other principle that he laid down, and the application of it, -- that taxation and representation should go together,--would apply with equal force and equal equity to woman as to man; but I notice that the Honorable Senator carefully and skillfully evaded that part of the proposition.

If a necessary connection between taxation and representation applies to the individuals in a State, and that is the application which the Honorable Senator made of it,--an application never made by our ancestors, but applied by them to communities and not to individuals,--I should like him to tell me why, according to his own argument, every female that is taxed should not be allowed to have the right of suffrage." "There are," said Mr.Fessenden, "but two propositions to be considered in the pending amendment; one is whether you will base representation on voters, and the other is the proposition which is before the Senate.
I suppose the proposition to base representation upon actual voters would commend itself to the Honorable Senator from Massachusetts.

I believe I have in my desk a proposition he made to amend the Constitution (laid before the Senate so early in the session that the bell which called us together had hardly struck its note before it was laid upon the table), in which he proposed that representation in the United States should be based on voters.