The States and Union. [volume] (Ashland, Ohio) 1868-1872, 1869-12-29

HAA L lIo SOAICNIS OC
concerning the true Interpretation of
the public sentiment of Ohio as evinced
in the recent election, holding that
where many questions were involved
in the success of a political party, it
was impossible to ascribe definitely to
any particular measure its proportion
al popularity. He charged that in
bringing forward the Fifteenth Amend
ment, the Republican porty had repu-
dated the Chicago platform upon
which Ohio has been carried for Grant,
and referred to the decreased Republi-
an ajorities in that as an evidence
of the people. Referring to the rejec-
ton of the Fifteenth Amendment by
the Ohio Legislature, he said if the
doctrine that a State could not with
draw its assent to a constitutional
amendment was correct, it would fol-
low that when a State had rejected a
proposed constitutional amendment, its
action could not afterward be reversed.
Mr.. Sherman said, like the acts of
Congress the action of State Legisla-
lures might be the subject of repeal at
any time. In reply to his colleague,
he claimed that the people of Ohio
never occupied a doubtful position to
either of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth
or Fifteenth Amendments. If the
simple question was, to-day left to the
people of Ohio, whether they would
disfranchise a man because he was
born with a black skin, he believed the
answer would be in the negative by
3d. 09 majority, and in justice to that
State he made this statement.
In the course of further debate be-
tween the Senators from Ohio, Mr..
Thurman replied at length to his col
league. He said: Under the p~retence
of sustaining the provision of the re-
construction measures, this. bill struck
down a State, that it was dangerous
in principle, for Congress could not
strike down members of the Legisla-
ture of Georgia because they were OBJ
noxious politically. Some power might
hereafter be exercised to strike down
the members of the Legislature of any
other State. The excuse that the au-
thority for such legislation was con-
tanned in the constitutional direction
that Congress shall guarantee to each
State a Republican form of Govern
ment was not a sufficient one, and had
no application to the case. He hoped
when John Chinaman came to vote, his
colleage would be able to explain why
he should be excluded. Why was it
that a man with a black skin could
vote and a man with a, yellow one
| could not?.
/ Mr.. Williams, of Oregon, (R.) sub
mitted an amendment substantially
similar to Morton's, which that Sena-
tor accepted as a modification of his
own, viz: That the Legislature shall
ratify the Fifteenth Amendment pro-
posed to the Constitution of the Uni
ted States before the Senators and
Representatives from Georgia are adj
mitted to seats in Congress.
Mr.. Carpenter, Of Wis. (R.) said
he agreed with Mr.. Morton on the en-
tire merits of the proposed amend
ment, and that all the members of the
Judiciary Committee agreed in desir-
ing the ratification of the Fifteenth
Amendment by Georgia, but the ques-
ton remained whether it was policy
for. the Senate to embody that enact
ment in this bill. By leaving out the
provision, Congress might evade a
question which would otherwise be
made by the opponents of reconstruc-
ton.
Discussion was further continued,
the main point being that by requiring
the adoption of the Fifteenth Amend
ment as a condition, a precedent would
be made at this time, and Congress
might incur the danger that by impell-
ing the adoption of the terms by a
State being in duress at the time, it
could not afterward be. bound by its
action, and that thereby said action
might be proved invalid. The adop-
ton of a constitutional amendment,
depending for its ratification On such
action, rendered it necessary. The
| Senate then took a recess until 1880
o'clock.
EVENING SESSION.
The consideration of the Georgia
bill was resumed.
Mr.. Davis, OF KY. Cd argued that
only by successful revolution could the
relations of the Southern States with
the Union have been permanently sum
dered, and the suppression of the re-
bellion involved the return of those
states to their former relations to the
Government, and the restoration to
the former condition of things without
the intervention OF Federal Legislation.
He defended the opposition to the bill
on general grounds and particularly
because it assumed to dictate arbitrary,
unheard of restrictions upon the Leg
islature of Georgia as to its method OF
procedure in the detail of organization
as to the qualifications of its members;
that it was &c post facto in its provis-
ions, because it provided penalties for
that, which before, was not criminal I;
that it impelled the power of Congress
to punish a State by that dangerous
heresy of assumed power, the exclu-
sion of a State from representation.
The discussion which followed as
sumed a wide range on political topics,
and was p~rotracted until a late hour.
Mr.. Casserly, of Cal. 3D. said that
four years of a government Of the bay
onet in the South had demonstrated
the futility Of the reconstruction policy
Of Congress; that violence and disor-
der were its legitimate result, and that
the coercive measures now proposed to
secure the ratification of the Fifteenth
Amendment, would invalidate action