The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1868-03-20
An Interesting Debate ia Congress
about Negroes.

ABOUT NekEocs.
In the House of Representatives Of
Wednesday, Mr.. BROOMALL proceeded
to address the House in support of the bll
| to guarantee to each State republican
form of government. At the close OF III
speech, .o
Mr.. WOODWARD asked him whethe
there was republican form of government
3 in Pennsylvania e =;
, Mr.. BROOMALL replied, that II III
COLLEAGUE had heard his remarks he cou''
have answered the question for hinlsel, -
saving that in that particular Pennsy we
MIA had not q republican government sih''
| 1888. , - rbat mar
, ticular2 r., .bo+ before
900 t,,ar. was no hereditary disfranchlse-
nov, in Pennsylvania, but now there Wa
o t'Ient bn meant to say that hereditary as
s"a.nbisnment was anti-rcpublican. ;.
AZ WOODWARD asked whether NE
,oiIaoone was so ill-read in the law repoIls
~ b;s own State as not to know that tne
crnreme Cont of Pennsylvania had acc an
ded that under the Constitution OF iI9o
q Tho word freeman " meant "Wnlte iIeo-
- and that the Introduction OF lhe
-.ar5 etwhiton into the Constitution Oh
1907 aid not alter in effect the Constltu-
ton a particle. ;, - IL oo1
Mr. BROOMALL replied that his col.
loaoua knew very we'll the history OF tha1
tuo1oaction and that the case referred TO
,ros oot-np case, and that the Judges nao
made The decision in the hope of saving
their places.
Mr.. WOODWARD defended the Judges
from the imputation contained in his col
leagues remark, stating that the decislon
in Guestion was written by the Chief JUS
tice of Pennsylvania, John Bannister Glib
son, man whose equal as lawyer and as
q Judge this continent had never yet pro-
duced, and whose name was better known
| in Westminster Hall than the name OF any
American lawyer. The decision was, that
under the Constitution Of 1870, which
used the word "freeman," the negro had
no right to vote, and Judge Gibson had
gone farther, and shown that the negro
race never had entered into the social
compact of this country that negroes we're
| brought here to be slaves against their
own consent, and were not here, as emil
| grants were, by their own consent.
Mr.. WOODWARD also referred toa re-
cent decision of Judge Nathaniel Agncw,
| of PENNSYLVANIA, "a man who Yves placed
on the Supreme bench by the Republican
party-against the right Of colored per-
son to a seat in the railroad cars provided
| for whites; that decision being based on
| the fact of q difference between the two
races. He declared that there was not in
the Constitution or laws, or judicial ludg-
| ments of Pennsylvania, the shadow OF q
| foundation for the sentiments OF his col
| league in reference to negro suffrage.
| The right of suffrage being, by the common
consent Of all American history, one Of the
reserved rights of the States, he would
| like his colleague TO say how he proposed
to eradicate from the Constitution Of Penn
svlvania the word "white" %; in other
words, whether he proposed to overthrow
the Constitution OF Pennsylvania by an
act OF Congress?
Mr.. KELLEY reminded his colleague
that the contcmporancous construction OF
the Constitution Of 1870, and all subse
uucnt action under it, recognized the free
mans right to vote, irrespective Of color,
and that colored men had voted there.
Mr.. BROOMALL confirmed that aSser-
ton, and said that up TO 1888 no Pcnnsyl-
vanian entertained any more doubt about
the right of men Of all races to vote in
| PENNSYLVANIA, with the necessary other
qualifications, than the people Of the Uni
ted States had doubted, up to the bred
Scott decision, that negro hadrights which
white men were bound 10 respect. Inc
bred Scott decision had not shocked the
moral sense Of the people Of The United
States more than the decision now laudcd
by his colleague had shocked the moral
sense of the people Of Pennsylvania.
Mr.. BOYER asked his colleague whether
the people OF Pennsylvania had not ratl-
fed the Constitution Of 1884 with the word
d" white" inserted in it.
Mr.. BROOMALL admitted that they
had, but suggested that one reason for
their doing so was to get rid OF those very
Judges who had made the decision in ques-
ton. In answer to his colleagues Mr..
WoODwARD'sl question as to what remedy
he proposed, he said that nc proposed to
legislatc ont of the Constitutions OF all the
States that contained them, those anti
republican provisions. He further said
that he had recently been consulted by
colored men from Virginia as to whether
they should put in the Constitution of that
State provision limiting suffrage to per-
sons who could read and write, they repre-
senting that for every colored man which it
; would exclude in the course of a few
years it would exclude five Democrats.
But be had advised against it because
he thought that political rights were more
needed for the preservation OF the civil
rights Of the men who are poor and igno-
rant and low than for those who are
wealthy, learned, and elevated.
Mr.. KNOTT addressed the House III
opposition to the bill, arguing against it in
its constitutional, political, and moral
aspects, and warning the wealthy classes
of the community of the danger TO their
property in bonds and manufactures when
the negro, who is entirely ignorant Of the
first elements Of political economy, shall
come to have influence on the legislation
of the country.
Mr.. WOODWARD followed on the same
side, objectingto the bill because itproposed
to subvert the fundamental law of Penn
sylvania, and of every other State which
does not allow negro suffrage. Suffrage,
whether general or limited, was State
affair, which had never been committed to
the General Government.
Mr.. LAWRENCE, Of Pennsylvania,
referring to the decision of Judge Agnew,
alluded to in Mr.. WooDwARD's previous
| remarks said that that decision was Sus.