The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1866-07-11
New England Representation III the
Senate.

Since the tQcTai IoNeTnlneiit Has pSeh
converted into a consolidated one, with
pcwcr to govern the States in all matters
a the States govern their counties, it has
been earnestly contended by many thought
nj people that the representation Of New
England in the Senate should be made to
correspond with this new theory. mas
much as every vestige Of States rights has
been destroyed, and the parties to the
Federal compact have no means OF redress
allowed them for any act, however oppreS-
>iyc, adjudgcd to be proper by their central
head. il seems to be unwise to continue
that equality Of representation in the
Senate which was. conferred upon the
States as an evidence of their equality in
dignity and rights. Logically, every indi-
vidual State is now at the mercy of the
majority of the States; and since we all
acknowledge that no State has the right to
scccde from the Union, and no right to
make war upon its fellows ,cithin the Union,
il follows, "as the night the day. that
unconditional submission to the will OF
the majority in Congress, as expressed III
the laws passed by that body and eH-
pounded by the Federal judges, is the
duty Of every loyal man. Such being the
case, every part Of the Union should DC
represented according to population, ana
not with respect to State boundary lines
these being 20 all intents and purposes
imaginary lines. If, for instance, Mr.. sun
MIR and his tribe can induce Congress to
pass law comforting the RICH. of suffrage
upon negroes, and the Supreme Court to
decide the law to be constitutional, no
State has any right to resist the execution
of such law. So of any other law. If we
could get Congress to pass a law providing
that no man should vote in the New Eng
land States who is a descendant of the
Puritans. and who is not worth ten thou
sand dollars, the duty Of New England
would be unconditional submission. Such
we understand to be the theory of the
government held and acted upon by the
Radical party, and, we might add, by a
large majority of the people of what was
once called the non-slaveholding States OF
this Union. Our theory oras an entirely
different one, but, as General FITzHrGH LEE
remarked recently, the result of the war
has forcibly reminded us that we have
nothing further to say in defence of our
theory. We accept the situation as it is.
Now, the Cincinnati Gazette, Radical
shcc, not quite as malignant as FoRNEY's
chronjciC, takes up arms for New England,
and actually has the simplicity to brandiSh
the Federal Constitution in our sight as an
instrument of warfare to be used in defence
Of her right to equal representation in the
Senate. We hardly know whether to call
ills impudence or folly. That paper argues
the question thus:
"This is comprehended in the project,
because it cannot begin without setting
aside that very groundwork of the Consti-
tuition which declares that 'no State,
without its consent, shall be deprived OF
its equal suffrage in the Senate This is
the starting point Of the compact. This is
reserved from the power Of amendment.
II cannot be taken away without revolu-
ton"
In the name of reason, man, have you
never heard of such thing as "amend-
ing" the Constitution? We simply pro-
pose to strike that provision out Of the
Constitution, and then any State can be
deprived of its equal representation in the
Senate whether it consent or not. Nothing
is more easily done. The Constitution
once guaranteed to the southern States
the right of property in their slaves; but
we amended" the Constitution, and took
away several thousand millions of property
from them in strict conformity TO the Con-
stitution as amended. So we propose to
do in this case. 1t may be unconstitu-
tional to deprive State Of its equal repre-
sentation in the Senate as the Constitution
now stands, but it will not be unconstitu-
tional when we get that instrument altered
for the purpose. To say that any feature
OF the Constitution is reserved from the
power OF amendment" is to assert that if
such feature were amended the State
thereby injured has the right to withdraw
from the Union; or, if not, that the provision
is a dead letter. Surely Radical 10 Irnal
would not teach such rank heresy. And
yet the dogmatic declaration that sit can.
not be taken away tritt0ut rerolitioun ha,
an awful squirting towards the doctrine
That the States still have some preserved
rights We should like for the Gazette 10
be more explicit upon this point.
4 There is another view Of this cons,itp
Y t!onal provision, which we commend to the
attention Of the Gazette. The southern
States have for more than seven month,
4" been deprived of their equal representa-
ton in the Senate" without their consent
They have elected Senators to represen,
them, who have in vain begged to b.
allowed TO perform that duty. Surely il
cannot be constitutional to deprive Virgi.
lila Of her equal representation in the Se-
nate, and at the same time unconstitutional
TO deprive Massachusetts, OF hers. This
point needs DO elaboration.
To conclude, we repeat what we said