Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1867-01-17

|
| further sanction of the constitutional
amendment than nthree-fourths of the States
actually represented in Congress.
Mr.. FINCK objected, and the resolution
was not received.
On motion of Mr.. ALLISON, the Secre-
tary of the Treasury was directed to fur
nish the House information In reference to
the disposal of u. s. bonds, &C.. as required
by the act of April 18th, 1862, viz: the
amount OF exchanges made or money bor-
rowedunder it, OF whom and on whatterms,
amount and character of the Indebtedness
retired under 1t, with detailed statement of
expense of making such loans and ex-
| changes. ,e
Mr.JULIAN, on leave, introduced a bill
| to extend,th provisions of theact of Aug.
4th, 1854, granting the right Of way for all
rail and plank roads for flYeyears. Refer
| red 50
The House considered Mr.. Stevens bill
| for the reconstruction-ef rebel States.
Mr.. PAINE spoke at length In opposition
| thereto. He denounced the present State
governments as piratical governments,
| which to this time had rested on the souls
of Andrew johnson and his northern and
southern satellites, but would henceforth
rest on the soul of the rash young gentle
man from Pennsylvania Mr.. Stevens.l 1t
would really seem If he TStevens] had some
time longed for the Presidential bread and
butter. ..... .-.., r...
MI. BINGHAM opposed the measure be-
cause he recognized the power of the peo-
pie to establish guarantees aud safeguards.
He believed the safety of the people de-
pended upon the incorporation into the
Constitution of the great amendment pro-
posed by the Reconstruction committee.
| That did not prevent further constitutional
legislation. But this bill neither stood with
the constitutional amendment nor the
duty Of Congress to give due protection to
citizens of the United States within the
disorganized States. let the future safety
of the republic rest upon irrepealable
guarantees imbedded in the Constitution,
and not upon repealable legislation of in
surgent States. So he would have the
lately rebellious States 90 on and perform
acts for the ratification of the Constitu-
tional amendment, even though they were
not regularly organized States, and the
ratification of their. acts subsequently by
Congress would legalize them. AS to the
Supreme Court, its powers were very limit
ed. Its appellate powers rested on the will
of Congress, and could readily be taken
away. This bill was very offensive to him.
Itattempted to restrict the right of petition,
which the Constitution expressly forbade
1t looked as II drawn by crown despot.
1t declared that all persons who were in
rebellion, and had once taken an oath to
support the Constitution Of the United
I States, were no longer citizens of the United
States, and could not become SO except
through forms of naturalization. He sub
mitted Congress had no colorado authority
for declaring, first, that million of people
of this country were no longer citizens, and
taonnd fhau nOulA taka M CLANS for
organizing State governments until Con-
gress passed an enabling act permitting
them to do so. In answer to question,
what remedy he himself proposed he said
he wished the measure referred to the Joint
committee on Reconstruction.
Mr.. BINGHAM also objected to other
provisions ofthe bill, one of which declared
that no person should be deprived of his
right to vote because of conviction and
sentence for any crime other than treason,
insurrection, or imprisonment for crime.
1t was declaring in effect that thieves rob-
bers, murderers and midnight assassins
should never be deprived Of the elective
franchise on account Of being convicted of
such crimes. While he was willing to as
sert all rightful powers of the Govern
ment he would never consent to in
corporate by law in the statutes
of the nation a provision that
would deprive the people of the right OF
alternating or amending the legislation
Congress had not even the color of right
| to pass such law. He was not going, un-
der pretense of protecting the colored peo-
pie of the South, to declare that the people
of any State were not to have the right to
alter and amend their laws at pleasure.
Mr.. BINGHAM also opposed Ashley's
bill as departure from the Constitutional
amendment. .# g. E
| Mr.. DAWSON followed in an argument
| to show that the Presidential policy was
the true solution of the Constitutional diff
| iculties.
| The House went into committee of the
Whole on the Legislative Appropriation
bill, and after some time spent therein, ad-
| journed.