Cleveland daily leader. [volume] ([Cleveland, Ohio]) 1865-1873, 1866-01-25
XXXIXth Congress

WAsH1SeroE, January 24-The HOUSE
-Aanraed the consideration Of the proposed
amendment to the Constitution.
| Mr.. LAWRENCE, of Ohio, moved to re-
commit the resolution to the Committee on
Reconstruction, with instructions to report
an amendment to the Constitution of the
| United States, which shall at once apportion
direct taxes among the States according to
| property in each, and which shall apportion
a representation among the States on the
basis Of the number Of adult male voters
who shall be citizens Of the United States.
Mr.. Lawrence explained his proposition /:
| The present mode Of aPportioning direct
taxes and representation was unjust, and
! although the result of compromise, it was
| wrong in principle and unequal in its prac-
| tical results. The result by his amendment
would make the voters in each State pre-
cisely equal. 1t was not proposed to with
hold suffrage from any class of people. The
amendment did not design to interfere with
the right Of any State to say who shall or
who shall not be voters he wished one
voter in South Carolina to count as much as
one voter in Ohio for the purpose of repre-
sentation. The original basis of represen-
| tation on three-ffths Of the slaves Of the
South having ceased, the mode itself
should now pass away Place not tax on
labor but on property, which ia the true
basis of taxation,
Mr.. sHELLABARGER opposed the reso-
| luton because It csntemplates, provides,
and in effect authorizes the States to wholly
disfranchise an entire race of people, and
that, too, whether that race be white Or
black, Saxon ar Celt, or Caucasian, without
regard to proportion of the entire popula-
| 1 on of the States.
Mr. BANKS said that the basis Of repre-
sentation having been in effect stricken out
| by the anti-slavery Constitutional Amend
ment, the question was whether the House
should re-estahlish it.
| Mr.. SHELLABARGER further opposed
| the resolution and advocated the amend
ment of Mr.. LaWrenoe.
Mr.. ELLIOTT, of Massachusetts,, offered
an amendment TO Mr.. Lawrence's instruc-
tions, that Representatives and direct taxes
shall be apportioned among the several
States which may be included in the Union
1 according to their respective numbers,
counting the whole number of persons in
each State, including Indians; and the
elective franchise shall not be denied or
abridged in any State on account of race or
color. He said he could not give to the re-
solution reported from the Committee on
Reconstruction his support, because 1t as
serted by implication that State has o
right to disfranchise q large class of its elti-
zens. Another objection to the resolution
was that it enabled State, by making the
right to vote depend on a property qualii-
cation, TO exclude q large class of men Of
both races, and a State might legislate in
such a way as to convert itself from re,
public into an oligarchy.
Mr.. SCHEGCK moved the following
amendment to Mr.. LawTsnee's instructions
Representation shall be spportioned
among the several States which may be in
i cluded within this Union, according
\ To the number of male citiEens over 81 years
of age, having the qualifications for electors
for the most numerous branch Of State Leg
7 islature. Congress, at their first session
after the ratification Of the amenment by
the required number of States, shall provide
by law for the actual enumeration Of such
voters, and such actual enumeration shall
be separately made in general census oi
the population of all the States within every
subsequent term of ten years, in such man
ner as Congress may by law direct. The
number of Representatives shall not exceed
one for every hundred thousand Of the popu-
lation, but each State shall have at least one
Representative.
Mr. PIKE, of Maine, opposed the resOlu-
ton.
Mr.. KELLY, of pennsylvania, said that
on the 10th of January he took occas on tt
, point out slight error IN CONSTITUTIONAL
| law into which the President seemed tt
have fallen. The principle which he had as
serted at that time having been controvert
. ed by the gentleman from Iowa, (Kasson,
, he kelley now proceeded to establish it
He read from the debates on the adoption o.
the Constitution, saying that the necessity
Of q general government supposes that thl
State Legislatures will sometimes fail or re-
fuse to consult the common interest at thi
expense of their social convenience O.
( p.riudices.
!. Mr.. Kelly, continuing, said the view o
/ the question was to decide that the Legisia
lures Of the States ought not to have tn
uncontrolled right Of regulating the time
: | places and manner of holding elections
These were words Of great latitude. Should
: all the voters for all the representatives, o
ell in the District, vote for a member al
lotted to the District, these and many othe
points would depend on the Legislatures
J. and might materially effect the appoint
z ment
Mr.. Kelly further quoted from the de
e ba.es on the adoption Of the Constitution t
L sustain his views.
Mr., BR0MWELL, ofIlline's ;, aidIthat th
resolution reported by the Committee a
: lowed its object to be defeated BY leaving
q 6poY open 70 property or other qualification
}. SO that the man whom the amendment we