The Emporia news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1859-1881, 1869-02-26


. right, privilege, or Immunity. which
) ever you choose 60 call il, guaranteed
: to him in the most solemn and binding
I form by the Constitution itself? Per-
sonai liberty is of little moment to hina
; without the power tn maintain it by
the ballot. In ten States, in the Dis
: triet of Columbia, aud i'm the Territories
! we have decreed to him the ballot.
Are not his rights as sacred in all the
other States as in these ten? IL he any
/ less man in those ten States than in
i. the others whose representatives here
have enacted him voter there? Every
man who voted for the enactment of
4 negro suffrage in those ten States and the
Territories, stultifies himself unless he
also votes to enact it in his own State.
His acknowledgment ia the South wac
an implied pledge, at least so regarded
by me at the time, given in the name
and with appreciation of the people we
represent, that the same thing should be
done everywhere under the jurisdic-
ton OF the Federal Government. That
| pledge yet stands unredeemed, and the
people of the States now Withholding
this right, should be the last to COM
plain of bad faith in the adoption of the
pending proposition.
! 1t is objected, also. that the PROPOSE
ton is centraliZing in its tendency !;
| that the investure of Congress with
power over suffrage in the States will
| disturb the equilibrium subsistiug be-
tween the States and the General Gov
| eminent, and result in the absorption
by the latter of prerogatives properly
belonging to the former, thus endan-
| gering the cardinal principles of Re-
publicanism underlying our political
system. i cannot but regard ground
for this apprehension as exceedingly
remote. In my judgement, the great
est danger that our system of govern
ment ever has or ever will be called
| upon to meet, is not Capitalization, but
| the reverse; that il is upon diffusion,
and not upon any probable concentra-
ton in the central Government of
political power, that we may look with
apprehension in our political future.
Mr.. President, / am not friend of
| the principles of decentralization, as it
| is termed-I call it disintegratiOn-
which for so many years characterized
| our form of government. One of the
inevitable sequences of our great civil
war was the demonstration of the nec-
essity for strong, centralized Govern
! ment, such as We never had, and such
as Washington, and Hamilton, and
many of the fathers commended fora
Government able to act promptly and
effectively when assailed from within
or without; Government able to
protect itself against all contingencies,
near or remote, liable to threaten its
existence or embarrassment.
Decentralization under the specious
| guise of State rights and State sover-
eighty was implanted in our forms
against the judgment of some of the
| wisest men of our formative period.
The people and statesmen of that day
proceeded to the erection of a political
/ fabric smarting under the burning
wrongs they and their fathers had ell
duFed under the crushing tyrannies of
the seventeenth and eighteenth centu-
| ries. and it is not surprising that the
= tendency of public sentiment should
have forced the trainers of the Govern
ment toward the the other extreme and
approximated that decentralization
which brought anarchy upon the an
cient republics, will bring anarchy up
on all republics which fail TO maintain
| in the central power the ability to pro-
tect not only itself, but also the source
of its power, the individual; for as
every individual is a component part
of the Government, with whose consent
only that Government exists, so the
more completely the individual is pro-
tected in all his rights the more per-
manent and enduring becomes the GEN.
trail and supreme political power of the
country.
To illustrate: our Government is
based upon the confessed theory that
the citizen is the sovereign source of ali
political power; that in submitting to
the restraints of law and yielding his
adhesion to established forms of gov
ernment he does SO upon the express
condition that in the enjoyment of the
rights he does not surrender he shall be
protected aud made more secure by
: that Government. But how is it with
/ the dearest of ali his rights, the right
of suffrage-the right of one man to be
in all respects politically the peer of
another? The Constitution guarantees
that there shall be no infringement of
individual rights by the States. Is that
guarantee regarded by the States or en-
forced by the General Government
Certainly it will not be contended that
/ 1t is while one-third of the citizens of
the southern States are denied the
rights of citizens of many of the north
ern States, or while one of the States
, of the Union elects from Office persons
whose right to official position is un-
disputed in many Others, or while Mas
sachusetts requires the citizen of Illinois
; to possess prescribed degree of edu-
cation before she will admit him to her
polls, or while New York compels the
voter in Iowa and Minnesota to show a
2 fixed amount of real property before
? he is allowed to vote under her laws.
: These Irregularities existing, who is
: to be the umpire between the several
States for the settlement of controver-
? sizes which are liable to arise out OF
/, them? Who is to stand as the champi-
on of the individual and enforce the
r guarantees of the Constitution in his
| behalf as against the so-called sover-
D eighty of the States? Clearly no pow
er but that of the central Government
is or can be competent for their adjust
| ment, and it is equally clear that unless
4 that power may be enforced by the
!, central Government, that Government
+ fails of the object of its institution and
develops within itself the seeds of it,
e own disintegration for when Govern.
: ment fails to protect the individual In
} any of his rights, it fOrfeits to the
J, degree of that failure its claim upon his
: allegiance and support. This may be the
e direct and legitimate result ofwithhold.
ing from the General Government the
, very power which il is now proposed
I to assert, and which is opposed from APP
I | prehension of q Capitalization of pOiiti-
/ cal power in the Federal Government.
1t is, of course, impossible 10 say
= what would have been the effect of {
8 larger inyesture of power in the GOV
4 eminent at the formation of the Consti
r tuition; but this much is clear, that al
4 the political disturbances Of the coun
; try from that day to this, have been tn.
fruit, more or less directly, of the de
: centralizing policy which obtained il
the Convention.
al Tried in the fiery crucibIe OF civi
d war, that principle has been Invested o
I'll much that gave il weight ia the mind