New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1866-02-28
FROM Warrington.
Continued from First Pnge.

Continued from First PnEe.
Constitutional truth the people would yet assert and
thai under judicial sanction the original power o the
Constiiution In conclusion. be said That as others
questioned whether the power contained IN the pro.
posed amendment existed ~ The Constitution he hoped
Congress would submit this amendment TO the people.
that hey might 10y IT enable Congress TO REINFORCE aud
maintain those rights.
Mr. HALE rose 70 state with great hesitation why We
should vote against the proposed amendment. IL vas
with greet hesitation That be differed from the cOncu
sjonS of the very able Joint Committee which had re
ported tie amendment; Committee coIaposed OF
gentlemen many OF whom were for legal and tonsiitu'
tiona learning men whose opinions must always carry
weight not only in the House but IN the country But
he wac consoed with the reflection that the recon
lpendation OF the Committee did not carry with to
bis 10 nd so auch weight 4 might have done II the
val OF secreeyhrown al At proceedings bad been
rpoy ed and if tho House cold he favored with the
arguments 10 which the Committee bad listened
Mr. GBiSSriL tiOWa' asked whether II was hct a.
ways the custom to keep the proceedings oil committees
secfet. -
teoan with hs views tl subject aud or Other sub
iscis legislative. theological and scientific Du' rs
II had nothing 10 do with the question Ia
hand he should decline gong into that matter.
So far as the House was concerned. all 1t knew WAS
that majority OF the COMMITTEE had reported the Dill
II cane into the House with that weight, and no more
II did not bear with u the accustomed Welgh'
Of The unanimous voice OF the COMMITTEE
II seemed 10 him that no weight OF authority
ought to bring the Nouse "a press the amend
examination. The tenor and effect OF The amendment
we're b.iue about radical change IN the system
OF Tie Government. aud TO institute WIDER departure
from the theory on which the.s framed X thar mao
ever before bsen proposed IL hny legislative oT consii'
rr,o,s, assembly What was the theofy OF the Constl
tutioI y not gen1fdl ist al powers 'e,aisls -
toe exercise oi DaOns sovereignty powers tchtnR 10
peace and ga and Ia abe eDiorc"ment OF INTERNATIONAL
law yp-p given 70 Con gess and tie federal GOyefn
inen by the Consiton. and that 81, The powers affect
ing the relations Of tie individual citizen 10 tie mum
= 1,fl fgout rcd
TO the Slater He submitted that The proposed amend
meut was IL eaecI pIosisl0n under which all sta'e
legislation in civil and Criminal ooofs OF PROCEDURE
affecting tie individual citizen Tbs to be oVerddeD'
,r,ealcd AID slo, she'd and law OF Congress estab
i'll ed II is place Nc ma'utaGed that IN that respect
the amendment Vss al utter departure IRON ah! prn
i-e ever dream ri OF By tie men who framed Tue Ton
Mr. SIEVE. PA Does The ecrtemsn mean ia av
that, .nder tie amendment. Congress can interfere ~
ans onse where The legislation o; State Is equal and
IMPARTIAL 20 all Il II not simply 20 provide thai Nben
the. i, distinction IL its sane law between different
kinds 81 individuals. Congress nav correct ihait
Nr HAIT-ln ny judgment II does 20 much further
than the ceromsn fGn Penn would carr! the
idea ~, did not go 80 far as that 1t Is atm
oea 10 the objection, that u departing ehfleV
from the theoT OF the Federal GoVvrnuent IN menuhg
A. all with those matters Of State Jurisdiction III Is
grant " the most su and SIMPLE powers 70 Congress TO
make all laws necessary and proper for the protection
o the rchi. al hfe liberty and property with the sim
r provso that that that protection must be elunl II
no. mere provision that when States undertake to
give nrOteciion which IL nOn-equhi. Congress may
eauallye il II grant Of power IN general terms
Nj FLDfrpep (wis) suggested whether !; might not
opeTae 80 hat If some States pat qualifications on
those rights Other States woud not be equal
j1e their legislation in the same direction.
Mr. HALE thought il might very possibly be So but
ne declined TO pursue that bnneh Of the argument IL
seemed 10 lin tAs the DeCessar, reforms IN state irR
isls,iou should come from the State tse and not be
forced urou il Dy the centralized power OF Congress
For instance most il not all tie States made dstlno-
,ion- against married women IA the matter OF property
Was II foY Congress 10 remove those disilnetlonsf
NJ SfyvENs suggested that when oil OF the same
GLASS all married women were dealt with in The same
way that wss not unegual legislation.
Mr. Hall regarded that argument as much more
,necious thsu sound for b. parity Of reasoning il
rfyht be said that when one negro was dealt vth IN
The sane way a. another. IL was not unsqus legsla
ton He splrehended that me ais'incuioh oi eIasi
was quite a. broad between negroes ana
mite men as it was between married women
aud unmarried women. he INSISTED thst thc
American people had vet found out that the state
governments were insufficient 10 protect the rights and
liberties Of the citizen. If the gentleman IRON ONO
(hfr BinghanJ had found IL 80 he "Ond recommend
him 90 eDigrate 70 New.foTk and ne womb una 'ei!
NJ. BNoH.M ohio said he was Instructed thai the
proposed amendment could have no possible erect IN
New YORK. .. 20
NJ UTr-it il claimed 1 know. that II is simply
meant 10 protect American citizens of African descent
in the States lately IN rebellion. 80
Alr Bseu.a-lt IA intended 10 protect tens OF thou
sands and hundred OF thousands of loyal white c,Ies
81 the United States whose property Nv ioca Sla,c
leyslat;ou has been Wrestcd from them b. coniisch
ton and 70 protect them from Punishment laws ior
which there mas been Federal statute " TINS dHy 10
give redress
Mr.. iIALI would thea modify his statement anu say
that the amendment intended 10 Apply 10 tbe IL
States lately in rebellion
M BfSGBAM-It is intended 10 apply IA every STATE
whose legislation il in direct contradiction oi H.
MI kOeERs N. JJ suggested that II applied 10
Indiana
MIR RIScHIs-I do rot know that
M H,IT-IheD u is intended 10 apply 10 every
State which in the judgment OF Congress may have
waited 10 provide equal protection TO HE. liberty and
property Then We come TO the very thing for which
deponncs this imposition. II takes away FROM the
States tie rgh; 10 detetuins their legislation for them
selves submit whether this is not rather The time to
check the centraIyng OF power in the General Govern
ment believe this Is Of all times the worst time to
radical amendment Of the Constitution 90
immensely extending the power Of the General
Cover ment. and derogasing from the powers
OF TIE States. i c0nccde svory dsposiuon
20 project the liberties Of the highest - well o. OF e
laowesi citizen Of the negro well ~ the VINO man
But lW warn gentlemcn thr there are other nper
ties asimportant the liberties Of the individual Gnu
s<B ard those the liberties and rights Of tho STATES
brllr,r We owe freedom our protection OF lghs
70 one deosnp AGED sysen 10 the fact tfaf tho Gov
errept with which the citizen has immediate eatoh
brSugh, hone 20 him medstely and that be opcf-
stes Immediately upon H. The beresy Of Stats rights
has been queed Let US tat more dangerous her
esy does not rsa up in ts place / oppose the amend
nent upsouDd in substance a. impo!itic m tnelf.
and as not in conformity or harmony With the
theosy Of the Consultation. sppees u - uncA9ed for
~ a tune, spdAs npsoAly pnslled UT poy y hAA o4r