The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-02-28

VI NANSbOlns
Interruption.
Mr.. CHANDLER IN. W interrupted Mr.. Kelley
TO ask whether he recognzed the veto power as
Mr.. KELLEY y recognize the veto power as one of
the Executive functions, which any President legh
mately exercises and know that II is exercised under
His hour. having elapsed, and Mr. Hale having OBJ
Mr. KELLEY asked that his time should be ex-
Mr. HALE said that he would yield IL the gentle
man (Mr. Kelley would only assure him that he
would touch the subject before the House, which he
Mr.. KfLLEY said he had been laying good pre-
argument on the question before the House
Mr.. HALE would yield the floor with that under
Mr. Kelley resumed his argument reading
among other matters, the virginia and Kentucky re-
Mr.. WRiGHT IN J) inquired whether these resoiu-
MI. KELLEY-As my time is inaexibiy fixed by
not stop to argue side questions.
Mr. WRIGHT-Proceed, sir.
MIR. Kelley Resumes.
Mr. KELLEY, after further citations admitted that
the action of states and of the Courts for eighty years
had been against s the exercise by & Of this
ofeghy years stood between this day and the great
sert, and that under judicial sanction, the original
power of the Constitution, In conclusion, he said that
the proposed amendment existed in the Constitution,
he he hoped CONGRESS % would submit pm ns this to
enforce and maintain those rights.
Remarks of Hon. MIR. Hale.
MT NN. y IOSt W Sttile WITH BTetJ
tion why lac should vote against the proposed amend
ment 1t was with great hesitation that he differed
which has reported the amendments Committee
for legal and constitutional learning; men whose
opinions must always carry weight, not only in the
the reitcoh that hat the decentralization Of the Com.
MeeS a as Might 5ve w ne m the Re Of 70 ee
I an m & haq s 6eep
which the Committee had listened
Mr; GRINNELL qowa) asked whether i was not
MIR. HALE should be very happy to favor the gem
tleman with his views on that Subject and on other
subjects. legislative theological and scientific but
decline going Into that matter. SO far the House
was concerned all II knew was that majority OF that
House with that weight and no more. 1t didnot bear
with 1t The accumulated weight of the unanimous
voice of the committee. 1t seemed to him that
weight of authority ought to bring the House to pass
the amendment without at least the most careful and
scrntinizing examination That the tenor and effect
cal change in the system of the government and to
institute wider departure from the theory on which
proposed in any legislative or constitutional assem-
What was the theory of the Constitution? Was it
notn general that all powers relating to the exercise
war and to the enforcem ent of law We're
given TO Congress and the Federal Government by the
lions Of the Individual citizen to the municipal Govern.
He submitted that the proposed amendment was in
effect provision under which all State legislation in
dvdua citizen was to be over.rdden, repealed and
SGgq sGs anq aT & of 10 q @ IN is
ment was an an ut utter departure from every principle
tuition,
Running Debate.
Mr.. STEVENS (Pa.)-Does the gentleman mean
teriere in any where the legislation of State Is
Sst Where She here dstncon ct nm in the same aW be
tween different Kinds of individuals, Congress may
Mr.. HALE-In my judgment it does go much fur
ther than the gentleman from Pennsylvanla would
it still open to the same objection that is DEPART
ing at he m & S0s 0 the o Se m
risdiction. II is grant of the most full and ample
proper for the protection Of the rights Of lie liberty
and property with the simple provso that the protec
when states undertake to give protection which not
equal Congress may equalize it, 1t is grant ofpower
Mr.. ELDRIDGE Cwis) suggested whether it might
those rights; other States would not be required to
MI Ii ALE thought it might very possibly be SO, but
declined to pursue that branch of the argument. 1t
legislation should come from the state itsel and not
be forced upon it by the centralized power Of Con-
made distinctions against married women in the mat
ter of property Was 1t for Congress TO remove those
MIR STEW EMS suggested that where all of the same
class-all married women-were dealt with in the
same way. that was not unequal legislation.
MT A n M hat 9 as o mSh
might be said that where one negro dealt with in
gsaon. VI" He spprehended that the distnction or
class was quite as broad between negroes and white
| men IL between married women and unmar-
| ried women. He insisted that the American people
had not yet found out that the state Governments
the citizen. If the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Bing-
emgrate to New York, and he would find it very diff
Mr.. BINGHAM said that the proposed amendment
could have no possible effect In New York.
meant protect American citizens of African descent
| Mr. BINGHAM-Its is Intended as we'll to protect
thousands and hundreds thousands loyal
white citizens the United States, whose property by
local State legislation has been wrested om them by
confscation and TO protect them against banishment
laws for which there no Federal statute this day to
| MIR. HALE would then modify his statement, and
say that the amendment was intended only to apply
Mr. M 'f Is intended to apply to every
State whose legislation is In direct of 1t.
Mr.. BiNGHAM@ff do not know that. " N''''N'
| Mr.. HALE-Then 1t is intended to apply to every
to provide equal protection to life liberty and property
Then come TO the Very thing for which denounce
right to determine their legislation for themselves.
submit whether this is not rather the time to check
believe this s OF all times, the worst time to undertake
mensey extending the powers of the General Govern
ment and deTogating from the powers of the states.
the h1mblest as well as Of the highest citizen Of the
| negro we'll as of the white man.
liberties Important those of the Individual citi-
| zen and these the liberties and rights of the
lection of rights to our decentrazed system to the
fact that the Government with which the citizen has
| Immediate relation. Is brought home TO him imme-
aiately and that he operates Immediately upon i.
Let us that dangerous heresy shall not rise
| in It's place. 1 oppose the amendment as unsound
in substance as impoltc in ITSELF and as not In con
formy or harmony with the theory Of the Constitu-
tion. oppose 1t uncalled for at all times and
10 be ali the other way especially oppose it for Che
manner in which il is sought TO be hurried through the
Vorable for the cam dispassionate consideration OF