Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1866-01-16

Constitutional provision, we're citizens,
and did vote for delegates 10 the Con-
ventiOn.
Mr.. Kelley said the gentleman misrep
resented the case, and asked what Il e
Court did decide.
Mr.. Rogers replied: The Court decided,
and every intelligent man who read the
decision would see, that Scott was not a
citizen Of the United States CT Of any
State, and did not come within the POI
litical status Of s State, and could not
become a citizen in any Court OF the
United States.
Mr.. Kelley remarked that the gentle
man had not vet answered what was
| decided. He (Mr. Kelley would state
that the Court decided It had no jurisdie-
ton Of the case before II, and therefore
turned il out Of Court, and thereby pro
claimed that all the array of facts was
outside of the Court.
Mr.. Rogers said that great sanctity was
given TO the action Of the Supreme Court
by the gentleman and his friends when
the Court leaned 10 radicalism but
when the Court nearly met the issue be
fore the country they then brand the
Court as usurpers, secessiOnlsts n
tyrants, and hat their decisions are not
entitled 10 consideration.
Mr.. Kelley replied that the gentleman
was slightly mistaken. The Republican
party do not stand by that decision.
He had never heard a member Of that
party say that the Court decided n SC
cordance with the law, when il decided
that IL had no jurisdiction in the case.
The assault was from the other party,
who say that the Court had Jurisdiction.
IL did not decide matters which those
gentlemen adopt as their creed.
Nv Rpnrara IA the agrrea Of HE av,o0,N
was interrupted by a question from a
member on the Republican side in rela-
ton 70 suffrage in the various States, and
in conclusion he further expressed his
views against extending the privilege 10
negroes, asserting that experience and
observation showed they were incompe-
tent 10 its intelligent exercise.
Mr.. Rogers repeated that the Court did
decide that Scott did not come within
the Jurisdiction Of the Court; was not a
citizen Of the United States, and could
not place himself in a position for action
in the Federal Court. As to conferring
suffrage on negroes, il was a monstrOUs
doctrine forcing equality, and placing
them side by side with The white race.
No such doctrine was heretofore an
nOunced by the Republican party.
Mr. Farusworth, of Illinois, said If he
] reeolIected the gentleman from New Ier-
sey did all he could 90 emb8rrass the
armies Of the United States, and 10 pre-
vent the Government from sending rein
forcements 70 their relief and assistance
in the field, and among other things the
I gentleman voted against the passage of
. bill providing for the speedy trial OF the
guerrillas among the rebels who were
shooting our poor soldiers who, while
weak and wounded, were dragging them
selves from the field Of battle. Aui if
he recollected right, the gentleman, and
his friends in New Jersey, refused 70 give
white soldiers the right 10 vote even as
10 who should represent them in Con-
gress.
The gentleman protested against what
he called the Injustice Of giving the hack
man the right 10 vote. The white sol
diers did not, however, object to clothing
the black man with the privilege. The
objection anne from the gentlemen and
his political friends. II freedom is in
~alienable, then there should be the right
Of voting 10 protect it.
He took issue with the gentleman that
this Is exclusively the white mans Gov
eminent, and maintained that our fathers.
who made the Constitution, designed il.
not for the white OF black man, but for
mankind.
He noticed the chargSs Of amalgama-
ton from time 10 tire, saying it existed
where slavery prCvailed, not where the
negro was free, and for the allegation
that the attempt was TO produce equality.
he was free 70 admit that he would pre-
fer a seat here by the side Of Fred
Douglas than beside Fernando Wood. for
instance. lLaughter.l
During the war a law was passed
giving citizenship TO foreigners who en-
tered the army and served for year
II this privilege was conferred on those
ignorant Of our institutions, why should
Il be denied TO negroes who are natives of
the land, and who for four wears fought
for the country The restrictions on suf-
frage in states should not deterhim from
doing his duty toward the cOlOred man in /
this District. In answering the objections /
which had been made in the bill, he said
the late elections protesting TO take
the Prs Of the people on the sub
Jtct OF negro suffrage was One-Sided and
q mOckery. Only n part of the peODle
voting instead OF all going Z o the polls. 1
Al the secessionists and sy~mpathizers in
the rebellion and cOpperheads voted on
Jnat occasion against the extension of
suffrage.
Mr.. Marshall asked on what authority
his colleague made that charge.
Mr.. Farnsworth replied by general
report.
Mr.. Marshall said it was very easy 70
make a general charge and added he had
been informed that not n Of the re-
turned white soldiers voted for negro
suffrage. The charge wa made without
proof
Mr.. FarnswOrth repeated his declara-
uOnf and intimated that his colleague
was a sympsthizeF with rebellion.
MI. Marshall said if his colleague
charged that he sympathiZed with rebel
lion, he charged what wa not true.
Mr. FarnswOrth said those who made
The Chicago platform in eighteen hum
tred and sixty-four did sympathlze with
rebellion.
Mr.. Marshall said, you already have
my response.
Mr.. FarnswOrthsaid whether the DEM
lcratc Convention intended 10 or not.
hey did give aid and comfort 10 the re-
In further advocacy Of confer
ing suffrage upon the col0red soldier. h.
aid the country would be criminal il il
lid not grant il.
The House then adjourned.