Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1869-02-03

whether white Or black and Mr..
Boutwell, did this, as it now appears,
70 secure the votes of those mem
bers who would not vote for a |
pure negro suffrage amendment.
Whether he did not 60 farther than |
he intended by his amendment is a
question simply for legal construc-
ton. We have shown that Mr..
Shellabarger, Of Ohio, accounted one
of the ablest constitutional lawyers
in Congress, regarded the amend
as not excluding those who par
ticipated in the late rebellion
from the right of suffrage, and he
sought to do this very thing by an
amendment, which the House of
Representatives voted down. Mr..
Wilson, of Iowa, who is member
Of the Judiciary Committee, and is
extensively spoken of as Grants
probable Attorney General, regards
Boutwell's argument on the 23d of
January as conclusive as to the
scope OF his amendment. In the
debate in the House of Representa-
tives on the 29th of January, Mr..
Wilson said: r-- q
'The pending amendment that of
Mr.. Bingham upon which We are to vote
declares that the States shall not impose
any property or educational test as con-
ditiOn to the exercise of the right Of sufS
frage. Now, it seems to me, if the doc
trine OF my colleague on the committee
Mr.. Boutwell,, as stated to the House
the other day, is correct, we need no
such amendment. He quoted from a
case decided by the Supreme Court Of
Kentucky these words: .--.
"'No one can, therefore, in the correct
sense Of the term, be citizen of State
who is not entitled, upon the terms pre-
scribed by the institutions of the State,
to all the rights and privileges conferred
by those institutions upon the highest
class Of society
"He continued, after reading from that
decision, as follows
"'Here is full and, | believe, fair
statement Of what constitutes citizen.
He must be in the enjoyment of all the
rights and privileges of any other citizen
| Further on he saws:
at is in harmony with the declaration
made by the Supreme Court Of the State
of Kentucky, in the opinion from which l
have just read, that it is an essential
quality of citizenship that the citizen
should enjoy the highest privileges that
appertain to citizenship in the State or
city of which he is citizen. Therefore,
when you prove to me that one man in
the State of Kentucky votes for President,
or for Representative in Congress, OF
for members Of tho State Legislature, you
have proved that every man having like
qualifications Of education or property has
the same right If you deny it to him
| you deny that to which by the constitu-
ton he is entitled the enjoyment OF
equal privileges and immunities as a citi-
zen ofthe United States, and as citi-
zen of Kentucky in the State of Ken
tucky!' 4--r.r.'. .aEr. ....
THE result Of this doctrine is that it
is held that the right to vote is ques-
ton of citizenship, and if that be correct
then wish to know, after we have de-
clared that every person born within the
Jurisdiction of the United States is citi-
zen of the United States, how you can
interpose even the qualification which
the gentleman from Ohio proposes: EEK,
cept to such as have engaged in rebellion
in the past If this doctrine be correct,
that person who is citizen must be en-
titled to all the rights enjoyed by the
highest and most favored citizen
| in the land. Then, as matter Of
course, if one citizen enjoys the right to
vote on reaching the age Of twenty-One
| years Of age, you can not impose on an
other property qualification, or an edu-
catiOnal test, or this test Of the commits
tee Of having been engaged in the rebel
lion. Therefore, if | am to follow this
doctrine, must be led into the position
of the other gentleman from Ohio that
is to say, that all citizens Of the United
States Of twenty>one years Of age, Of
sound mind, and who have not been cons
victed Of any offense or felony under the
law, must be entitled to vote; for if the
right of suffrage is an Incident Of citizen
ship then no State has right to deprive
any citizen of that incident"
| Mr.. Wilson has show cOnclusivelY
that Mr.. Boutwell, has been guilty
Of inconsistency in his argument as
to the scope and intention Of his
amendment. The strong point
which Mr.. Wilson makes on the
| argument of Mr.. Boutwell, shows
that the latter is either ignorant of
| the powers of the constitution as
he would have it amended, or he
has tried a little game Of dema-
| gogucry, in which he was nicely
caught. The reply Of Boutwell, to
| Wilson's we'll grounded point is cx-
! ccedingly lame. 1t was in this last
debate that hc was exposing the
| purpose he had in view in proposing
the amendment bearing his name,
not to establish universal sui
rage, hut to force negro
suffrage upon Kentucky, Mary
land and Delaware and those
| Northern States that had persistent
| " refused through the ballot box to
engraft that species of suffrage upon
their constitutions. This early
attempt after the election Of Gen.
Grant TO take from the States what
was conceded to them in the plat
form adopted by the convention
that nominated him, shows the ami
mus Of that party, and how little
confidence is to be reposed in their
| pledges. The Chicago platform de
clares that the question Of suffrage
in all the loyal States properly be-
longs to the people Of those States.
| Yet before the election Of Gen.
Grant is officially declared, Cen
| gress arrOgatcs to itself the right
to regulate suffrage in the States
| The 0uestion il will the States