Cleveland daily leader. [volume] ([Cleveland, Ohio]) 1865-1873, 1866-03-01
XXXEXth Congress
WAsHINGToN, February 2s.
HOUSE.

HOUSE.
Mr.. STEVENS sent up TO the desk and
had read a dispatch about the caucus Of the
PENNSYLVANIA Legislature and asked con
sent to have it referred to the Joint Com
mittee on Reconstruction.
Mr.. CHANDLER objected.
Mr.. STEVENS then withdrew the docu-
ment.
Mr.. WOODBRIDGE addressed the House
in support Of the amendment, followed by
Mr.. Bingham on the same side.
Mr.. BINGHAM said he approached the
discussion of the question aware that it was
utterly impossible for him to do justice to it
in the time allowed. He thought the gen
tleman from Vermont had uttered words
that ought to be considered and accepted
by the gentlemen, when he said that the ac-
ton Of this Congress on the future prosper
ity of the country would be felt by genera
tiOns to come. He believed the people had
entrusted to the present Congress the case of
the Republic not only for the present, but
for all hereafter. The Committee on Recon
structiOn would not have recommended this
proposition but for their confidence in its
adoption and ratification were essential 10
the safety of all the people of every State,
present and to come. lie repelled the sug-
gestion made in the heat Of the debate, that
the committee or any of its members sought
in anv form to mar the constitution or to
take from any state the rights that belonged
TO it under the constitution. This was sim
ply a proposition to arm the Congress of the
United States by the consent Of the people,
with power to enforce the bill of rights. As
it stood in the constitution it had that ex-
tent no more
Mr.. BINGHAM said that the gentlemen
who seemed 10 be very desIr0Is Of standing
well with the President of the United States
would if they looked narrowly to his mes
sage at the opening of the session, find this
very proposition vindicated and approved
by him, for he there told Congress that it
was the right of every man 10 be secure in
life, liberty and property, but that rested on
a higher authority, on the authority Of the
people, speaking through their Constitution,
when they declared that the citizens of each
State should be entitled 10 all the privileges
of citizens of the United States, and that no
person should be deprived of life, liberty
or property without due process of law. He
argued that the proposed amendment did
not in any way interfere with the reserved
rights of the States. He referred 10 the report
of the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr..
Rogers, that he was opposed 10 i because
it came from a Joint committee more
tyrannical than any tyranny which dis
graced the reign of Louis NV. II the
amendment was good he did not see that
that was any objection 20 it though the
gentleman seemed to think it was Mr..
Rogers must have spoken sportvely or
ironically. Probably he would not have
| spoken at all but for the fact that somebody
/ else at the other end Of the avenue mad so
/ spoken when he denounced, in a speech to
| party Of the gentleuau's choosing, this
! Joint Committee on Reconstruction, raised
| BY both Houses, as being di=tat1rial, uuc0n-
| stitutional and unauthorized by law. II
4 the gentleman were not speaking Ironically
one would have supposed he would have
| made haste 10 withdraw himself from all
! connection with such committee. The
| House had heard the other extraordinary
/ argument made by the gentleman from
| Pennsylvania, Mr.. Randall, that however
lust the amendment might be, IL should moi
| be passed IN the absence OF the Representa-
tives Of the eleven States lstelyin rebellion
Mr.. Bingham referred, IN this cOunec-
ton, to the reply Of Mr.. Madison when
asked in regard to the adoption of the Fed
eral Constitution by nine of the thirteer
original States by what ri gHr r. should b'
made binding, the answer the righ
of the people to self-pre iu5tiiies 1t
1t rests upon the tra law o
nature, and nature give .---i. b, 1t ha'
gone with the people B.. II tAel