Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1868-07-02


vention, and continued Next after the
equal suffrage in the Senate stands this
provision, with iis talismanic phrase,
hedual footing" New States are to be
admitted on an eQual footing with the
! original States In all respects whatever.
| This language is strong, but nobody csn
doubt that il must be read in the light
of the ordinance where it appesrs. Read
1 In this light its meaning cannot be ques-
| toned. BY the ordinance there are no
less than six different articles of compact
forever unalterabie, unless by common
consent, constituting so many perpetual
safeguards.
These perpetual safeguards" !" not one
of which, as we have seen the Supreme
Court decide, continued in force mo-
ment after the adoption of the Constitu-
tion, Sumner says, were not considered
in any respect inconsistent with the
"equsl footing in all respects in which
all new States were to be admitted into
the Union, The Supreme Court has de-
eIded, on the contrary, that the moment
these States were admitted, the ordi-
nance had no force of law or obligation,
except so far as its provisions were
adopted and re-enacted. But, he argues,
IS these perpetual conditions were not
considered inconsistent with that equal
footing, therefore "even assuming that
the States when admitted shall be on an
equal footing with others, there can be no
hiadrance to any conditions By Congress
kindred to those t0htch a0ere the glory Of
the Ordinance"
This stuff is supposed by Summers ad
mirers to be argument. 1t is simply
assertion and nonsense. The conclusion
does not follow from the premises. 1t is
8 mere naked, bald, impudent.. non
seqlsitur.
This passage follows;
To all who, borrowing a cateh-word
from slavery, assert the equality OF
States 1 oppose the plain text Of the Con- |
stitutiOn, which contains no rule except |
in q single instance, and there the equal |
ity may be waived and oppose also |
the ordinance OF 1857, which, while re-
Quiring that new States shall be admitted /
on an equal footing with other States,
teaches by its own great example that
this requirement is not inconsistent with
the conditions of all kinds and espe-
cially in favor of human rights. From
this review it is easy to see that we ap-
proaeh the present question without any
or eonstrsint in the Consti-
tuition. Not a provision, not clause,
not s sentence, not a phrase, in the Con-
can be made an apology even
for the present bjeetiOn-absolutely
1 here challenge reply.
any support in the Constitution
lis partisans borrow one of the worst
of slavery, and utter it now
As it was uttered by slave masters.
And this:
The conditions upon new States are of
wo classes: First, those that may be re-
luired second, those that must be re.
Iuired. The first comprises those cOndi-
ions which the nation may consider it
advisable to require before admitting q
lew member into the partnership of the
government. The constitution, in posi-
i've words, leaves TO the nation a discre-
ion with regard to the admission of new
States. The words are "new States may
,e admitted into the Union,n thus :
,lainly recognizing q latitude under !
which any conditions not inconsistent
With the constitution may be required, as
" a firm, on the admission of new
'artner. All this is entirely reasonable;
iut do not stop to dwell on it, for the
which have at heart does not
ONE under this head il is a funds-
mental condition in favor of human
lights, and is Of that essential character
hat it must be required. Not to requite
is to abandon plain duty.
The whole Constitution proceeds upon
be distinct assumption and understand
1g Of the equality of the States, in every i
articufsr in which inequality is not
reated by the Constitution itself, by
living unequal representation in the ,
over House Of Congress, and an un-
quail electoral vote. The same rights 1
re reserved to all. The same restric-
ions apply to all and Congress cannot
lace one State in q condition of infe-
iority to the other, by imposing on it
OnditiOns that are not imposed on them.
The last paragraph which we have
uoted is in some respects extraordinary.
he nation, it says, may require eondi-
ons, "befOre admitting new member 4
ito the partnership Of the Govern
lent" What did Sumner, who is
.wyer, mean by this phrase? If a State 9
a member" is this not Union Of
tates, and not a consolidation of the ?
tates into one people? What is the Ct
of the Government?" Why
OF honestly have said, the States are
artners: they have right to impose Z
before admitting new part
er into the firm? ?" Simply because r
lis would have been to admit the doc
inc contended for by the South; that
le Constitution is compact between
le States. He does say, afterwards, R
lat such conditions may be required, v
as by firm, on the admission of 8 P
ew partner But no conditions can D
3 required, under the Constitution, that B
i'll make one partner inferior to the
hers. That may be doae in a mercan- a
lie or other individual partnership, but
he cases are not analogous.
AS TO the assertion that {" the condition
fundamental one, in favor OF human :
ghts, and of that essential character
lat it must be required" it is utterly
utterly absurd and ridieu- 4
us, condemned by judicial authority,
I'd never asserted by any man whose
1inion was of the least weight or value.
0 admit it to be correct would be to de-
roy the rights of the Ssstes altogether. ]
0 say that Congress can compel State
do any thing that it may Judge to bel
favor Of human rights, is worse than
sking the foot Of the Chancellor the
easure Of equity. II
Mr.. Sumner proceeded to argue that =
ie condition could lawfully be imposed, D
,cause the United States are required :,
: the Constitution TO guarantee to each
.ate "a republican forns of Govern
ent." This form of Government is
oxen OF in contrsdistinction to the
onarchicsi or oligarehic form. What
ght has aHy one 70 exteud the mean