Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1872-01-31
SENATOR NORRLLL'S SPEECH

| The speech MADE Dv MI. MOrflll on tne
25th in the Senate, the amnesty bill being
under consideration, was very clear and
able argument against the amendment of
fered by Mr.. Sumner to the amnesty bill.
In his opening Mr.. Morrill, stated succinct-
" the difference between the bill and the
amendment. The bill simply contcm-
plates the removal of political disabilities
from certain citizens who, by their own
conduct, have fallen under the ban of the
government. The amendment proposes
to give certain Accommodations, privil-
eyes, facilities, and advantages" to certain
other citizens of the United States in the
institutions and private corporations OF
the State. The bill finds its authority in an
express provision of the Constitution: the
amendment invokes some vague principle
in that instrument to enable it to invade
the domiciliary rights Of the citizens of Il
| State.
Mr. Morrill, declared himself at the out
set in favor of general amnesty. This
question he declared had been settled.
The condition of the country at the close
of the war, and the reorganization of the
Southern States made amnesty neces-
sity, and now the only question to settle
is whether to go forth and occupy the
broad and liberal ground taken by the
President and the Committee which had
considered the matter. This he said he
was ready to do.
But to the amendment offered by Mr.
Sumner he made decided opposition
Briefly mentioning some parliamentary Oh
iections, he passed to the weightier reasons
against it, of having no warrant in the
Constitution, and being opposed to the
/ rights of the States He denied that the
fourteenth amendment added any new
principle or gave any new force and vigol
to the Constitution by which this amend.
ment could be authorized. The thirteenth
amendment declares that slavery shall no,
exist hereafter in our limits, but it does
not authorize such legislation rs the
, amendment contemplates. Passing by
|
8 ments to the Constitution, we take the fol
> lowing extract which will show clearl,
to our readers Senator Morrills position
My honorable friend from Massachusetts
says that he does not design anything more
than what he understands to be precisely nee
essary to make freedmen freemen. | under.
stand his great purpose. His great purpose
is to see that the Congress of the United
States shall spread its power over all the
States, to the end that whatever any man, in
whatever capacity, or under any circumstan
ces. has right to have in the State, in the
family, in his social or domestic relations
, shall belong to the colored man. Well, sir,
am no, quarrelling with him about that Tha
may be WELL That is at least benevolent
l hope to see the time when it will come I,
pass.
But that is not the question we are talk inc
about here. 1t is not question of the right
r and privileges, social, civil, or domestic
which the cOlored man ought to have beyont
$ what he has got. l take no issue with tn,
J Senator on that proposition. The colore,
citizen of the United States possesses undo
the Constitution the same privileges and i'm
niunities of other citizens and by the four
teenth amendment no State can make an,
law to abridge, deny, or deprive him of thes,
rights. Whatever belongs to the citizen be
longs alike to him. 7 do not say that h,
ought not to be equal before the law an,
+ everywhere, socially, politically, and civilly
in all the States. l deny him nothing. d,
d not mean to say that he ought not to hav
e Accommodation in hotels, and into tn,
churches and the schools, and the theatre
and places Of amusement, as my honorabl
f friend contends. That is not the question TO
d us to consider. That touches rights of
strictly domicliary character, and so not il
our province. My position is not that thes
Accommodations, &C., may not be enforce,
by Congress on behalf of colored citizen
: only but on behalf OF any citizen whatever
and that in this respect al least, there is n,
E, distinction Of race or color, or of citizenship
., but that the exercise of this power on the par
: Of Congress would he a palpable invasion o
the rights Of the people of the States in thei
: purely domestic relations. That is a ques
. ton with the people OF the United States, an,
not with us. This Constitution has given u
: no such authority and no such power Tina
f might be well; it would be we'll; and th
: great day may come when we shall be so i'm
b ied with the principles of justice and equal
f ity and humanity and Christianity that w,
shall embrace everybody in fraternal rela
tons, without regard to distinction or color
: when the partition walls of society and de
nominations will be thrown down and W,
|
. tism, and so welcome all to our bosoms I,
our firesides, and all that. l hope these
things will be. But that is not question fo
the Congress of the United States. That lie
in province outside of ours.
Mr.. President, there is great deal of con
fusion of ideas growing cut of that misconcep
ton of the distinction between the privileges
!. of citizenship and the rights of man. Thu
rights of citizenship are one thing and the,
are exceptional to some extent. The right
OF man are quite another, and the rights O
. the latter are above the other as high as thu
heavens are above the earth. When yot
come to talk about the rights of citizenship
you talk about a privilege merely Why
sir, to come back to first principles, what wa
citizen in the olden time? He was not tn,
highest style of man, nor was his privilege.
the highest type of rights among men. IL,
was man who was supposed to live in city
/. having certain franchise to do certain things
: lie was privileged to do certain things, but he
was not power in the State always; not al
ways did he have the right of suffrage even
This l suggest in passing as proper to illus
trate the limitations which the law sats al