Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1872-02-13

"1he defeat Of amnesty in the Senate to-
day is regarded by most persons as post
poning the question for the present session.
The Hale bill from the House is on. the
table, ard might possibly be passed if a
direct vote could be had upon it, but il is
Mir. Summers known intention to move his
civil rights bill aS an amendment to every
proposition for amnesty, and the Senate is
too tired Of the subject to care to 60 over
the discussion again. Before the Eale bill
can be reached it is possible that strength
enough may be obtained for it to vote Mr..
Summers proposition down without an ex-
tended debate, but other business is likely
to push amnesty aside for some time, as
Mr.. Logan's Chicago relief bill has prece-
eence on Monday, and Mr.. Cole has given
notice that he will begin work in the Senate
on the appropriation bills on Tuesday,"
1t is pretty clear that Summers deliberate
purpose in offering his civil rights amend
ment to the amnesty bill and his persistent
refusal to Withdraw that amendment and
pass it as distinct measure, was to defeat
amnesty entirely at the present session, and
present appearances indicate his success.
Mr.. Sumner was perhaps actuated by a
dual motive in the course he has pursued.
He hates the Southern people with all the
malignity Of his nature, and be is unwilling
to do anything towards removing the
shackles that were imposed upon them
at a time when madness ruled
the hour" Then be hates Grant cordially,
and as his message contained a recommen-
dation that an amnesty bill be passed, Sum-
ner's opposition to the measure was
strengthened by the hope that its defeat
would injure Grant in his aspirations for a
reelection. 1t is charged by Mr.. Summers
political friends in the Senate that his civil
rights amendment was meant to kill am
nesty, and not only this, but that Senator
Sumner has so asserted out of the Senate.
If this is true it presents Mr.. Sumner in
anything but a favorable light before the
country. Indeed, to the common under
standing, it looks like very marked in
stance of duplicity in very grave matter.
From the proceedings of the Senate on the
18th inst, as reported in the Congressional
Globe, we quote as follows:
Mr.. Sawyer Mr.. President,
this measure of amnesty, repeat, is the
business in hand. Let us do it. The
measure of civil rights is measure which
has nay earnest, warm, and hearty support.
l believe l know it cannot pass attached to
this measure. believe that three-fourths
of the Senate Know it cannot pass if at
tached to this measure. l think the Sena-
tor from Massachusetts has said, not in his
place III the Senate, but elsewhere, that if
this amendment were attached it would de-
feat amnesty. have been grossly misin-
formed unless that is the fact.
Mr.. Sumner-Had not the Senator better
confine himself TO what 1 say in debate,
without attributing to ne something Of
which he has no evidence?
Mr.. Sawyer will certainly take the
Senator's disclaimer.
MIR. SUMNER am sure that the civil
rights bill cannot pass if its professed
friends speak and vote as the Senator from
South Carolina. There l am discouraged;
but let the Senator from South Carolina
lead off now with a generous word-he has
the foor-for the rights of his constituents,
and l will be bound that it can become a
law very soon.
And again:
Mr.. Ferry Under these cir
cUmstances it has seemed to me from the
beginning to be ungenerous to attempt to
attach 10 this bill an amendment whose
only ultimate result could be the defeat of
the original bill, and do not think that
even the Senator from Massachusetts can
dispute that during part, at any rate, Of
the period while we have been discussing
the bill now before the Senate, that Senator
has entertain ed precisely the view which l
have expressed, that if the amendment were
put on the bill in the Senate, it would then
go to the House and there be killed
Mr.. Summer. No; 10; never.
Mr.. Ferry, Of Connecticut. The Sen
ator must pardon me, but l think it can be
shown, not indeed in debate here, and yet
not in private conversation, that language
such as l have Just uttered has fallen from
the lips of the Senator himself-aud coming
back to the Senate, then the removal of pO-
lltiCal disabilities is disposed of for the pres
ent, and the Senator's bill, which stands
first on the calendar, can be taken up and
passed, for majority Ofthe Senate would
then be committed to it. Sir, like to leg
islate, as like to do everything else, in
straightforward way.
This is certainly very bad showing for
Mr.. Senator Sumner, nor can it well be
seen how he can escape the imputation Of
having deliberately brought forward his
civil rights amendment in order to prevent
the passage of the amnesty bill. Not
content with this exposure Of Mr.. Sum-
ner's purpose, Mr.. Ferry, on the 9Th
inst, showed that the amendment
which the former pressed with so much
pertinacity, was unconstitutional and revo-
lutionary in its character. He characterised
Mr.. Summers amendment as embody doc
trines which ''strike at the very bulwarks
of civil liberty in this country" and that
the principles upon it is defended "tend di-
rectly to consolidate all authority in this
nation into one imperial government" Mr..
Ferry characterised the amendment as fol-
lows:
81 regard it not an amendment in favor
of human rights, because l believe if adopt
ed it will leave human rights in this coun-
try upon a more insecure basis than they
have ever hitherto reposed. The great Sc
Curity for the life, liberty, and property is
and ever has been local self-gOvernment;
and while the Senator from Massachusetts,
and those who think with him, speak as
earnestly as l do in behalf of local govern
ment, their acts tend to its overthrow. The
amendment proposed by that Senator, and
the amendment proposed by the Senator
from Wisconsin alike,are argued here upon
principles which are fatal to the rights of
the people Of the States, as citizens Of the
States, and which tend directly to CONSOLE
date all authority in this nation into one
imperial government.
"The amendment goes on to subject trus-
tees and officers of church organizations to
fines and imprisOnments and to liabilities
for damages in civil actions, unless they
shall furnish TO all persons, without dis
elimination Of color, accommodations in
their churches alike. l believe that clause
in the amendment TO be in violation Of that
to the Constitution of the
United States which protects religious lib
erty in this country; but do not care to
argue whether il does or does not