He had long believed that the apportionment of Representatives should be based on the number of qualified voters; while a member of the legislature of Tennessee he had moved that the apportionment in that State be so made; and in the interview with Mr. Stearns he said: "The apportionment is now fixed until 1872; before that time we might change the basis of representation from population to qualified voters, North as well as South, and, in due course of time, the States, _without regard_ to color, might extend the elective franchise to all who possessed certain mental, moral or such other qualifications as might be determined by an enlightened public judgment."[56] But however desirable a limited suffrage might be, he insisted that the only safety for the nation lay in leaving the whole subject to the discretion of the individual State. The only approach which he would make to national interference would be through constitutional amendment. In an interview with Senator Dixon of Connecticut, on January 28, 1866, he suggested that such an amendment might be worded in the following manner: "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union according to the number of qualified voters in each State. "Direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union according to the value of all taxable property in each State."[57] The great advantage of an amendment of this kind, in President Johnson's opinion, was that Congress would thus shift all responsibility regarding negro suffrage to the States. Each State would determine the qualifications for voters, and its representation in Congress would depend entirely upon the narrowness or broadness of the suffrage. In the same interview with Senator Dixon, he described the current contention over negro suffrage as "ill-timed, uncalled for, and calculated to do great harm." 8. While the President was expressing his belief in qualified representation, and advising the States in process of reconstruction to grant some form of limited suffrage, the States themselves manifested no disposition to follow his advice. While he was describing them in October as lying helpless, they were busy framing laws which were aimed to counteract, so far as possible, the force of the emancipation proclamation.