Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1866-12-26
Nebraslka and Suffrage.


The following is part of the debate last
Thursday, in the Senate, OF the bill to admit
Nebrasks a. State.
Mr.. Edmunds of Vermont took the floor
in support of the amendment of Mr.. Brown,
attaching the condition of impartial suffrage
upon the admission of the State. He MAIN
tanned that Congress had the light to make
conditions precedent to the admission OF a
State, and that 1t would be retrograding from
the principle of equal rights asserted IN the
District Suffrage bill, to permit an incoming
STATE to deny suffrage on account uf color.
Neither the Congress OF 1854 nor that Of
1864 had any right to forestaIl the action OF
this body but the Enabling act of 1864 had
not contained anything inconsistent with the
proposed requirement of striking out the
word " white.' IL was the night as well as
duty of Congress to scan closely any new
constit ution proposed. There was no Inhe-
| rent right in the people of this Territory to
come in on their own terms. The Senator
from Ohio, who had always been in the front
ranks of liberty, would not deny that in
republic all men gulltless Of crime had the
| right of franchise Irrespective of race that
| the right of O voice in selecting lawmakers
belonged as much TO the ignorsnt man as to
| the intelligent, was the democratic theory.
! Mr.. WI AIDE asked whether, If Congress could
esta bllsh such permanent conditions, there
| be any rights reserved to states.
MIR Edmunds-If we cannot admit State
| upon a condition, then what becomes of our
condition that the people oi ,nsas or Ne
| oraska shall never set ur slavery? Ii We
| nave power to do that, why not set up any
other arbitrary conditions lie supposed tina,
the Senator, like Rufus Choate, supposed
| chat the Declaration of lndep endence WAS
only glirleripg generality, and that the
| rights Ut humanity We're OF lille account
| He regretted to that Senator'S COURSE
On this bill. They never could have any
permanent prosperity in departure from
justice.
Mr.. Wade denied that he had receded from
| hIs position as an advocate OF liberty. he
| wss not, however, an extremist, losing Sig 1
Of practically, So as 20 tail III accomplishing
good. lie was not to be frighIen by a RED
| rag.
| Mr.. Eimunds asked whether It was right
to deny 8. ffags to a CLASS.
| MIR. W ade thought not, but said he never
grasped ct The ghost of principle when 1t
was iuapplIcable. lie had always shown By
MS ACTS that he did not consider the Doclsra-
ton OF Independence glltieTIug generality
He ,hougha 1t was NOT the power OF Con
gress 10 force an Interchangeable law on q terri
tory.
| Mr. Sumner calico the senator 8 2tten ZION
TO the tact that the enabling act there
| were three irrevocab coDoitIJns
MIR. Pomeroy, o. Kansas, argued that II
the constitution WAS to have any validity az
all, II must be submitted 10 the people. He
thought the bill could be amended 10 nc
other way. He would vote for the bill.
Mr.. Howard, OF Michigan, combated the
proposition that Congress had right TO IT,
pose Irrevocaole conditions upon new States
and argued that there must De perfect equal
lty between tie States. 1t such a thing
were possible, by the same rule Congress
could form q complete code Of state law.
and make them lrrevocabie. Ii would deny
ali the reserved rights OF states. He could
not vole for 1t /; nor DID he believe IL would
ever meet the sanction CT the people.
Mr.. Edmunds replied that 1t mad Away,
been held ID bis State, V Inch was older IL
Repu tlicanism than Michigan, that the law
OF Congress Were above tne 5 axe avs, anC
were the supreme laws Of the land
Mir. Howard said Michigan had the prece
denoe of Vermont ID JJining the Repu ohcsT
party, by week.
MIR. Edmunds would say to the Senate
that before the gallant little State Of MIchi
gan born the Legislature of Vernon
had affirmed this principe. This was nc
new power proposed to be exercised by Con
greee.