New-York tribune., 1867-03-15
THE RECONSTRUCTYON BILL.

Two amendmpnts Offered by Mr. Drake, 10
tbc Sunplementary Reconstruction bill, were
tbo snbiect of an interesting debate in the
Senate Yesterday. The first amendment pro-
yided that at the first election held III each
State the registered voters should vote tor OF
against q State Convention, and that 1t should
be held or not held as tho majority decided.
The bill provides that the members OF the
Convention shall decide whether the people
want q State constitution, but Mr.. Drake argued
that the people should by direct vote declare
their wishes. He was in favor OF guarding the
Southern people from the possibility OF be-
travail by their leaders, and was sustained by
Mr.. Howard, who, thought the amendment
would fully submit to the people of the South
the terms of reconstruction proposed by Con-
eress. and enable them to plainly declare
whether they were willing 10 comply
with them. Mr.. Morton believed
that both the amendment and the Dill were
wrong in allowing the voters to decide whether
Convention should be held and constltu-
ton formed, and that it waS only necessary
TO consult them as to the ratification OF the
latter. Mr. Fessenden argued that the duty
of calling n Convention should not be i'm
p0sed upOn the District Commander, on the
ground that it was a compulsory method
of forming constitution, and that the
Rebel States should not be Obliged 10
act upon the offer the Government had
made. Mr. Tumbull, speaking for the Ju-
dietary Committee, thought the provision IN the
bill that the constitution must be ratified by a
majority of the registered voters, sufficient TO
insure a true expression of the wishes of the
people. and in this belief the Senate disagreed
to the amendment by q to II, the Democrats
and johnson men voting against IT.
Mr.. brakes second amendment, to the effect
that no State constitution should be valid
unless it provided for election by close ballot,
and agreed that such mode of voting should
not be changed without the assent OF Congress,
raised an important observation-disclosures the
States, after admission to the Union, would not
have the legal right to strike such provision
from their constitutions. Mr.. Drake defended his
amendment on the ground that such pro-
vision would be an express contract with
tho Government, and that its violation
by any State would be legal reason for
the expulsion Of its representatives, from
Congress He was opposed by Mr.. COnk-
ling, who quoted decision of the Supreme
Court that any condition exacted as q
condition for the admission of n State, ceased
10 bind after the State became a sovereign
member of the Union. Tho proposition to en-
force n secret ballot was opposed by Mr. Trum-
bull. Mr. Wilson. and Mr. Buckalew, who
held that it would encourage fraud. and be no
protection to the people. But that which
seems of most importance is whether Congress
has the authority to impose conditions upon
the Rebel States which shall be binding after
their restoration to the Union. This opens
discussion not only upon the amendment of
Mr.. Drake, but upon the whole bill, and
shows the probable uncertainty of the plan
of reconstruction Congress has proposed. If
the Rebel States, after their restoration, have
the right to strike out any part of their con-
sttutions which Congress required them to
insert. they have the right to strike out all
that Congress has required This is question of
extreme gravity, and one which seems TO have
impressed the Senate, though direct
alusion was made TO it in the debate.
Without acting on Mr.. brakes amendment the
Senate adjourned, and we may expect careful
consideration of Mr. Morton's suggestion that
the clause requiring that the State constitu-
tons shall provide for voting by secret ballot,
should be considered separately from that which
asserts the right of Congress to make such a
condition binding in the future.