The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1867-03-16

had men OF nerve In the Senate they
would carry out his idea. He came from
State where there were no conservative
Radicals. His was radical radicalsm, and
the people endorsed that kind of radical
ism.
Mr.. TRUMBULL, replying to Mr..
DRAKE, said he had not such an opinion of
the people, either North or South, as to
deny them an open ballot. To do so would
be to encourage fraud and ballot-stuiling,
without securing any compensating good
for such an evil.
Mr.. FESSENDEN preferred not to put
such provisions in this bill, but to leave all
such matters to be considered wnen the
constitutions of those States were pre-
sented to Congress for revision.
Mr.. CONKLING. having sent for
volume of Towards Reports, read from
one of the decisions to show that condi-
ton exacted as a condition of the admis-
sion OF a State ceased to have any binding
effect when the State became sovereign
and assumed its functions as a member Of
the Union. He had very great doubts
whether this provision, if it could be en-
bodied in the constitution Of any Of the
late rebel States, would add to the secu-
rity of the people it was designed to pro-
tect.
Mr.. WILSON said that at the risk Of
being classed as a conservative Radical he
should vote against this amendment. They
had had some experience on this subject
in Massachusetts,. They had passed a
secret ballot law there once. 1t met the
disapprohation Of the people, and was
finally modified so as to tolerate, instead of
compelling, such a way of voting. He
thought the country would look upon THIS
as rather narrow point to make, and as
seeking an occasion for keeping the States
out of the Union rather than endeavoring
to get them back.
Mr.. DOOLITTLE believed it to be an
constitutional to impose any such conai-
ton on future State. ALI such matters
were left to the States by the COnstitu-
ton.
Mr.. MORTON said he would vote for
Mr.. BRAKES amendment if the clause re-
/ ferring to the future were omitted, and it
provided simply that voting by closed bal
lots shall be provided for in the constitu-
tons. He believed it very important that
the voting should be by closed ballots, but
he doubted the right Of Congress to impose
condition of this kind which should be
binding in the future.
Mr.. HENDERSON spoke against the
amendment.
Mr.. BUCKALEW thought the advan-
tages of voting by ballot were over-eSti-
mated. The only result obtained by it was
an opportunity for cunning people to de-
ceive others. 1t was idle 10 attempt to
make the employe independent of his en-
ployer by this means. 1t would afford no
protection. He objected to the attempt in
this manner to establish immutable princi-
pies in constitutions. He believed it a
wise policy to subject constitutions to pc
riodical revisions and opportunities for re-
form. He hoped to see the day when
votes would be registered and kept for ez-
animation.
Mr.. CORBETT did not believe the
amendment of Mr.. DRAKE would accom-
plish the purpose for which it was intend
ed. He spoke briefly against it.
At the conclusion of Mr.. CORBETT'S re-
marks, the Senate, pending the cOnSidera-
ton of Mr.. BRAKES amendment, went into
executive session, and soon after ad-
journed.