The national Republican., 1869-02-08
AMENDMENTS TO THE CoNsTITU.
TION

tlon, which has passed the House, and is still
pending In the Senate, is receiving the de-
termined opposition of the Democratic poll
ticians and the Democratic press. The
same factious opposition has been manifested
by them In reference to every proposition to
liberatc, elevate and improve the condition
Of the colored race In this country, and we
may look for their antagonism to the end.
This is the highest development Of modern
Democracy in the free United States In this
latter half of the nineteenth century. 1t 10
party Of prejudice and Of hate, based upon
Ignorance and brutal passion manifestingits
essential qualities of mind, heart and enllght-
cnmcnt against a race guilty only Of q
"skln not colored like our own"
The Democratic party, as organized In this
country, seems unable to comprehend the
progress of civilization aud free principles,
and refuse to accept the ideas which the
word democracy symbolizcs; and hence their
chief men tread backward, and spend their
forces in defence Of etIetc institutions OF a do
parted age. Nothing more Is needed to satisfy
the people that the Democratic party as
at present organized Is a sham.
The strangcst and at the same time the
weakest argument which has been adduced
against the proposed amendment is this: that
the Republican party Is false to It's pledges to
the people in bringing forward this PROPOSE.
tion at this time. 4 resolution Of the Chi
cago convention, which declares that "the
question Of suffrage in all the loyal States
properly belongs to the people of those
stntes," Is brought forth with sort Of tri-
umphant flourish. Mr.. Eldrldge, of wlscon-
sin, in the House, and Mr.. ylckers, In the
Senate, have trotted this resolution out and
thrown 1t in the teeth Of the Republicans who
favor the amendment, and accuse the party
of going before the people upon issues In
which they do not believe. The Albany
argus parades the charge in solemn platl-
tudcs. and our ncighbors of the Etpres take
up the refrain. In short, "Tray, Blanche
and Sweetheart, little dogs and ALL" are
making low growls at the Republicans on
account of their alleged Inconsistency.
Let us examine this charge for moment
The whole oft is that the resolution declares
that the question of suffrage properly belongs
to the people of the loyal States. In the ab
scnce Of any constitutional provision to the
contrary 1t did, at that time and even to-
day such Is the fact; but this resolution did
not pledge the party never to alter or amend
the Constitution In this regard, and those
who contend for such an Interpretation Of
this resolution are raising man Of straw.
The logic of their position Is as unsound as
II Is ridiculous. Slavery once existed In many
of the States of this Union, and 1t belonged
to those States to maintain and perpetuate
1t, or to abolish 1t, and for many years 1t was
so declared by national conventions; but
slavery has been abollsed by constitutional
amendment, and who, to-day, will have the
temerity to produce the numerous resolutions
of national conventions which affirmed that
the management of slavery was exclusively
State matter 7 Such man would be laughed
at for his folly. The resolutions Of parties
which simply declare the existing status Of
questions can never bind the national Legls-
lature, or abridge It's power to alter or amend
the organic law in the way that the Constitu-
tion itself points out.
out the methods by which that instrument
may be amended. Congress proposes to
make an amendment in respect to suffrage
by one of the methods pointed out In the
Constitution, and when this is done the ques-
tlon Of suffrage will no longer belong to the
States. This Is the all of IL.
The Evening Erprsss assumes that an over
whelmlng maJority Of the people would con-
demn this proposition were 1t submitted to
them, and hence argues that 1t be submitted
to them for their vote. Where In the Con-
stitution does our nclghbor find the authority
to submit amendments of the Constitution
for their ratification by direct vote Of the
people And II 1t be required In this Instance
why not lu every case 1t Is evident that
no such plan can be adopted, and 1t is equally
clear that all attempts to base an argument
against the proposed amendment upon a
resolution formed in a party convention,
which resolution only states an existing fact
Is as futile as II is absurd.