Columbia democrat and star of the north. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1867, 1866-03-21

il was our act instead OF the act o! the
States we propose to dslranch:se, can be
no reason for imposing upon them The pres
ent amendment.
2 The argument is plainly insufficient,
because il covers but part OF the subject
matter Of the amendment. The argument
applies only to two fifIhs OF the slave pop
ulatiou emancipa,ed by the war. But the
amendment applies to the whole negro pop
ulation, whether slave or free before the
war, wherever suffrage is withheld from
them. Il strides heavily at the represe nta-
lion Of Maryland, Kentucky and other States,
which did moi join the rebellion, and every
where excludes colored non>yo,ers, ,whether
slave or free before the war, from compu-
taton. The free negroes OF Pennsylvania
aud Of Maryland are 10 be excluded from
enumeration upon an argument whEh has
no relation to them.
3. The argument does not take into ac-
couIt the rate of mortality in the slave pop.
ulaton since the outbreak of The wat That
mortality has been very great. and has been
estimated 10 amount TO a fifth part OF the
whole. | do not think it impossible that
the census of 1870 will show decrease o.
the negro population within the late slave
States ,as compared with the census OF 1850,
Of much more than one million. Al all
events, the tate OF mortality during the last
four years is fearfully great, and though
il cannot be exactly stated, il is a fact which
must not be- overlooked. But 10 the whole
extent of decreased numbers among this
people the argument am answering fails,
and il may be still further weakened here.
alter
4. Bnt if The argument were perfectly
sound and satisfactory, il would not justify
this amendment, buI one OF a very different
character. II the addition of two-fihhs of
the late slave population TO the representa-
tive basis OF some Of the States is an unjust
or pernicious change requiring a conslitu.
toral amendment 10 correct ii, that amend
menl would properly be one which simply
removed the cause of complaint, and an
amendment which would provide that two
fllhs OF the negro population, lale slaves,
and their descendants, should not be count
ed, although free, would meet The whole re-
quirement OF the argument now under no.
lice, And if it should be said that such n
amendment could not be conveniently ap-
pied, answer that ore nearly equivalent 10
it ,and more convenient of application, might
be substituted. It all events, The argument
does net support the amendment now
pending which departs from il TO the whole
extent of the free colored population before
the war, TO the whole extent OF three fifths
of the slave population, and also OF all As-
attic inhabitants OF The Pacific States. or
course state this point according TO the
existing facts, sUTrage being with
held from the negro and other inferior races
in all the States where their numbers are
my own included
Having answered this particular argu-
nent Brought forward in support OF the
amendment, it only remains 10 consider
the rule of representation Accord
isg to population, or the whole number of
persons in a State, is not the proper one for
general adoption. The exceptional case of
a population part slave is now removed
from our problem, and we may consider it
without reference 10 that disturbing cause.
Certainly our fathers thought population to
be the proper basis, fer they established it
Tor themselves and for Us, limited only BY
a temporary provision, which met the ex-
ceptional case of the slave. Certainly even
lhe committee of Gfleen thought PoPua-
Iation better basis than any other, for they
10 net suggest property, electoral quaIlf
Gallon, territory, or any other general basis
as a substitute. And if we pass from au-
lhor:iy 10 reason, what can be more clear
than the convenience ann eqnality oil the
rule of population Our question concerns
The representation of States as such, and
rule which shall be perfectly uniform as to
all; and operate equally upon all, lis the rule
alike of Justice aud of wisdom. Your
amendment strikes at The States with un-
equal hand part OF them will be wholly
unaffected by il, while upon others it will
be, and was intended TO be, an instrument
to coerce their internal policy, or to punish
hem for the free and independent exercise
Of their own judgment. On The contrary:
he rule of population presses nowhere and
ofends nowhere. Il offers no bribe on the
one hand, aud inhicls no punishment on
The other. II lends 10 harmony, because il
PRODUCES no discontent Besides; what bet
ter rule for The security OF local interests
Than that of population can be conceived
That Ct voters is open TO most weghty OBJ
jections, some OF which have been we'll
stated TOO III inIhis Senate and in The House.
That of properly is odious and anii-republ-
can. One basedon territorial divisions is
cut OF the question. The only possible one
-. L. ~, r.. ~