Baltimore daily commercial. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1865-1867, 1866-01-12

After the transaction of some routine business, the
House TOOK up the bill to provide for impartial SUI
trage in the District OF Columbia. when Mr.. Rogers.
OF Jersey made an address III opposition thereto.
In opening he alluded to the charges made against
his side of the House Of being rebels sympathizers
and said that he should engage in retaliatory Ian
guage for he believed that there was not purer or
nober class of patriots than those who now oeIohg-
ed to the party opposed TO that IN power Al Lne
time he believed that the majority IN TINS House
honest and sincere in their convictions Oh rlSnt
in attempting to force negro suffrage on the peopie
BY the Constitution Of the United States the Decla-
ration of Independence, and the decisions OF the ST.
preme Court. the Government only recognized white
Mr. Kelly, Of Pa. asked if be meant to say that the
Supreme Court decided that none but white per-
Mr. Rogers said that ne did so state and would
!, MI. Kelley asked what case he alluded to?
Mr.. Rogers replied, the bred Scott case.
Mr.. Kelley would ask the gentleman II he ever
heard of the difference between the. dictum OF d
the Supreme Court in the bred Scott case, by fals
flying all history, did assert what the gent leman from
New Jersey accented as { decision; put he affirmed
that al the time of the adoption OF the Constitution:
New Jersey and all the colonies, except the State Of
South Carolina, recognized citizens all free pGl
Of color who voted for delegates TO the C0nstitu-
United States, and voted on the question OF tho
adoption Of that Constu ion, lie chaiienged con-
tradcton OF this by any historical fact or by any !e-
Mr.. Rogers read from the decision of the Supreme
Court. claiming that it showed beyond doubt, that
it decided that bred Scott negro, was neither the
ctizcn of State OF the United States, and each
Judge Of the Court assented TO the position. He
claimed that in the Declaration OF Independence and
in the Constitution, the only intent was TO include
the white race. The debate relative to what the Su-
prene Court did decide in the Bred Scott case was
here continued at considerable enrth and in invov
ing the relations of the states to the General Govern
ment elected remarks from half dozen members
During this debate on the rights NJ the States,
Mr. Smith, of Kentucky, asked the gentleman from
New Jersey. if all the States but Kentucky should
fatfy the Constitutional amendrSnt abolshlng sla,
very slavery would be Of legal effect in Kentucky
Mr. Rogers replied, that he believed that II would;
Tor the Federal Government could not strip from the
States the powers expressly delegated to them by the
Districk arailsi Their viii while Il had heen re,
undated in States represented here BY members. al
vUcat;ng it for this District. # this hill passed. We
should yet see in this District negro Mayor, with
bis thick lips and EthOrian heels ruling oFer the
men and women Of this District. tLaughteT.l Nr.
Rogers closed two hours speech with an earnest
pcIdT..tian s&aHSi the enforcement Of Such an cleo
tive franchise, AID denounced vigorously tins new
doctrine of negro suffrage now TH:sted by the Re
Mr. Farnsworh OF H.. took ;he door and opposed
the position assumed ~ Mr. Rogers that The founders
Of the Government teaqcIit only white Lien. lie
oonteuded that il was made neither for whte
white man 5 Government, sounding sfrznge TO the
colored crippled soldiers. they came hobhlins home
from the hlttcfelds Of tho country. Ho viewed the
prejudice against the negro only APPLYING TO him.
in state OF freedom. i.crc seemed 30 be no preJu
flcC against MN IN StitC OF sEb|cFy-lhb
he became free the cry OF social equality was raised
As for himself 30 would sooner sit in this House With
Rssd. Dougias than with Fernando Wood. and fthere
say @:.snce in the remark he would G1sweriori II
10 Fred. DOusia
lie favored egua: ana uni vefsal suffrage every
where, and i was 10 Oheclun IL enforcing suffrage
here because certain Northern States hGt made 4
distinction. When you submit this question 10 ali ~
the people Of the District Of COiuMbia-black and
yyhte-for thel1 tG vote, lie would ahite Their 3eci-
sion. L was the vCr!esi Inockery for portion OF
Tho people 10 vote what another portion should do
He rQCs, that every SeccSSioni5t, semi rebel and cop
perhead ara returned rebel soldier voted against
suffrage il thu late election here.
Mr.. Marshall. Of H., asked his colleague by what
authority he made those siatementsf
Mr. FarnsToEtb replied that ii was Z matter Of
general repnt5.
Mr. Marshall said il was very easy 70 make general
assertions Ike that: hut it could not be proved. lie
MIR NJ. knew tnat returned rc5ei soldiers were NOT
allowed TO vote, while not single woe OF Union
soldier for negro suffrage was cast at that election.
Mr.. FaruswoTth repeated his statement and intl-
mated that his colleague was ynpathlzer with the
ae rebellion.
Mr.. Marshall said If bis colleague meant that he
Mr.. NJ sympahized with treason no stated what
was not true.
Mr.. Farnsworth ref.lied that those VINO made the
Chicago platform in 1854. and with whom mis- col
league acted, did sympajhize with the rebellion.
Mr.. Marshall denied tue charge.
Sir. EarusSO Ia continued to argue ct length that
suffrage should be extended inpart!aliy everywhere.
Some security needed fro the South for the iu-
fare. No Union man there safe, Only a tow
DAYS sgS Gen Grant sent escort TO virginia 10
move Union family who had been attacked. With
out vote, tAe House at adjourned.