Daily union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1865-1866, 1866-05-13
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT OF
THE RECONSTRUCTION COMMIT
TEE

II will be seen from Washington dis
patches in another column, that the report
of the committee Of fifteen passed the House
on the 10th by more than the necessary two
thirds vote There is but little doubt that
il WILL also, pass the Senate. This PROPOSE
ton j. in the nature Of an amendment to
the Federal Constitution. That instrument,
as il now stands, requires the assent Of three
fourths Of the States TO change it by amend
ment There are thirty-six States in the
Union. Consequently, it requires twenty
seven States to carry.
Surprising that it is ratified by all the
Northern States, Maryland and Missouri, it
will then require two Southern States in
addition. Tennessee will count one. Can
another be had2 We think not. Seeing
the difficulty thus presented, Mr.. Stevens
has advanced the theory that there are only
twenty-five States in the Union, and that,
therefore, nineteen only are necessary for
its adoption-the Southern States being
counted out.
This is the boldest presentation Of the
issue between the President and Congress
that has yet been made, and we hope it will
be fought out upon that line" looking to
the people as the final umpire.
One Of the Objectionable features of the
proposed amendment is the Sd section, which
provides that until the 4th of July, 1870, all
persons who voluntarily adhered TO the late
insurrecIion, giving it aid and comfort, shall
be excluded from the right to vote for Rep
resentatives in Congress and for electors for
President and Vice President of the United
States. In a recent debate upon the question
Mr.. Blaine, of Maine, Conservative, called
the attention of Mr.. Stevens, and of the
House, to this provision, stating that it APP
peared 10 him that that was q violation Of
good faith in reference to that large class OF
people in the South who came within the
terms of the Amnesty Proclamation OF
President johnson, and who were thereby
restored to all their civil rights. He asked
Mr.. Stevens for an explanation on that
point
According to the published debates, Mr..
Stevens replied that the pardon extinguished
the crime-after pardon there was no such
crime in the individual. Those who were
fully pardoned did not come within the ope-
ration of the third section.
Mr.. Blaine said he understood the gentle
man from Pennsylvania to say that those
who came within the terms Of the procla-
nation Of amnesty, would not be considered
as having adhered to the late insurrection.
Mr.. Stevens assimilated their condition to
that of a person convicted Of felony, and
thereby rendered incompetent to testify; but
who, if pardoned, and if his testimony were
challenged could produce his pardon and
thereby show his competency.
Mr. Blaine suggested that, if that was the
proper construction to be given the section,
it should be so amended as that there could
be no question about its construction, and
he should at the proper time move an
amendment to that effect.
We think Mr.. Stevens reasoning correct
as TO the effect of the pardon, but his inter
probation is very different from the one gen.
orally given 10 this section. We hope he
and his friends will stand by it.