Delaware tribune. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1867-1877, 1869-02-18

"There is not, it is believed, to be found
in the theories of writers on government or
in any actual experiment heretofore tried an
exposition of the tenn citiyen, which has
not been considered as comforting the actual
possession and enjoyment or the 2'eTtect.
right of acquisition and enjoyment Of
an actiue equality ofPriuileges, civil and
political. t."-19 HoVdrd, 47G.
Thus from every authority, early and late,
from Hamilton, writing in the Federalist,
from Madison, speaking in the Convention
Supreme Court of the United Slatcs,is there
one harmonious testimony to the equal
rights of citizenship.
If in the original text of the Constitution
there could be any doubt, it was oil relieved
by the amendment abolshing Slavery and
empowering Congress to enforce this pro-
vision. Already Congress, in the exercise
of this power, has passed Civil Rights Act,
which, like the former, shall help consum-
mate the abolition of slavery. According to
a familiar rule of Interpretation, expounded
by Chief Justice Marshall in his most mas
terly judgment, Congress, when entrusted
with any power, is at liberty to select the
''means" for its execution. The civil
Rights act came under the head of "means'
selected by Congress, and Political Rights
as well deny the constitutionality of the one
as the other.
The amendment abolshing slavery has been
re-enforced by another, known as article
XIV, which declares peremptorly, that mo
State shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges and immunities
of citizens of the United States" and again
Congress is empowered TO enforce this pro-
vision. What can be broader? Colored per-
sons are citizens of the United States, and no
State can abridge their privileges and immu-
mites. 1t is mockery to say, that, under
these explicit words, Congress is powerless
to forbid any discrimination of color at the
ballot-boX. Why, then, were they inscribed
in the Constitution? To what end? There
they sland supplying an additional and su.
against Caste or Olgarchy of the skin, no
matter how strongly sanctioned by any State
government.
But the champions, anxious for State
Rights against Human Rights strive to
parry this positive text by insisting that, in
another provision OF this same amendment,
the power over the right to vote is conceded
to the States. Mark, now, the audacity and
iragility ol this pretcxt. IL is true that
"where the right to vote is denied to the
mole inhabitants Of State, or in any way
abridged, except for participation IN roDel-
lion or crime, the basis of representation
is reduced in corresponding proportion.
Such is the penalty imposed by the Consi-
tuition on a State which denies the right to
vote, except in specific case. But this
penalty on the State does not in any way,
by the most distant implication, impair the
plcnary powers of Congress TO enforce the
guarantee of republican government, the
abolition of slavery, and that final clause
guarding the rights of citizens, three specific
powers which are left undisiurbcd, unless
the old spirit Of slavery is once more re-
yived and congress is compelled again to
wear those degrading chains which for so
long time rendered 1t powerlcss for Human
Rights.
Mr.. President, make haste to tho con-
clusion. Unwilling to protract this debate,
open the question in glimpses only. But,
even in this imperfect way, it is clearly seen,
| first, that there is nothing. absolutely moth
ing, in the National Constitution to sustain
the pretcnsion Of Caste or Oigarchy Of the
skin, as set up by certain States, and second
ly, that there is in the National Constitution
Succession and reduplication of powers,
| investing Congress with ample authorliy.to
repress any such pretcnsion. In this con
| clusion, | raise no question ON the power of
| the States 10 regulate the sullrage do not
| ask Congress 10 undertake any such regua-
| tion. simply propose that, under the pre-
tense OF regulating the suffrage, States shall
not exercise prerogative, hostile to Human
Rights, without any authority under the
National Constitution and in defiance of its
positive texts.
| am now brought directly to tie propos-
ed amendment of the Constitution. OF
course, the question stares us in the face,
why amend what is already sufficient
| Why erect supcrnumerary column?
| So far as know, two reasons are assigned.
The first is that the power of Congress is
doubtful. 1t is natural that those who do
not sympathizc strongly with the Equal
Rights of all, should doubt. Men ordinarily
find in the Constitution what is in them
selves, 30 that the Constitution in its mean
| ing is little more than Il reflection of their
own inner nature AS am unable to find
any ground of doubt, in substance or even
| in shadow, | shrink from proposition
which assumes that there is Il doubt. To
my mind the power is too clear for question.
As well question the obligation of Congress
to guarantee q republican form of govern
ment; or the abolition of slavery; or the
prohibition upon the States TO interfere with
the rights aud privileges ofcitizcnship, each
of which is beyond question.
Another reason. assigned for constitu-
lional amendment is, its permanent charac-
ter in comparison with an act of Congress
which may be repealed. On this head
have no anxiety. Let this beDefccnt pro-
hibition once find place in our statute
book, and il will be as lasting as the Nation
al Constitution ITSELF to which il will be
only II Legitimate corallary. In harmony with
the Declaration of Independence and in har-
mony with the National Constitution, il will
become of equal significance, and no pro-
fame hand will touch its sacred text. 1t will
never be repealed The elective franchise
once recognized can never be denied; once
conferred can never be rescindcd The rule
of Equal Rights once applied by Congress
under the National Constitution will be a
permanent institution as long as the Repub-
lie endures; for it will be a vital part Of that
republican government to which the nation
is pledged.
Dismissing the reasons for the amend
ment, / turn to those which make us hesi-
tate to present it for ratification. There arc
two. The amendment admits that, under the
National Constitution, as it is, with its recent
additions, Caste and an Oligarchy of the
skin may be set up by State without any
check from Congress that these ignoble
forms of inequality are consistent with re-
publican government and that the right to
vote is not an existing privilege and lmmuni-
ty of citizenship. All this is plainly admit
ed by the proposed amendment, thus despoil
ing Congress of beneticent powers and emas'
culating the National Constitution itself. II
is only with infinite reluctance that car
consent to any such admission which, in the
endeavor to satisfy ungenerous scruples
weakens all those texts, which are so import
ant for Human Rights.
The hesitation to present the amend
ment, is increased, when we consider the
difficulties in the way of its ratification.
am no arithmetcan but understand thai
nobody has yet bean able TO enumcratc the
States whose votes can be counted on to as
sure its ratification within any reasonable
time. Meanwhile this great question, which
cannot brook delay-which for the sake o
peace and to complete reconstruction SHOULD
be settled at once,is handed over to prolong
cd controversy in the Srates.
OF course, if there were no other way o
Accomplishing the great result, the amend
ment should be presented, even with all it
delays, uncertainties, and provocations I,
local strife. But happily all these are un
necessary. The same thing may be accom-
plshed by act of Congress without any de
lay, without any uncertainty, and withou
any provocation TO local strife. The sam
| vote of two thirds rpuuired for the nresenta