New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-02-08
THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.
Mat. Carpenter Nasby-A Lively Discus
sion In the United States senate MOI

| sion In the United States senate Mon
| day.
Mr.. Carpenter offered substitute to Mr.
| Summers pending amendment to the sup
! Elementary civil rights bill, providing tina
| if any common carriers or keepers of public
| places make any distinction in their acc ON
mOdatiOns or respect to any citizen on &C
count of his race or color, they shall ht
fined not less than $500 nor more than 5000
| for each Ottense.
Mr.. Carpenter said that the difference
| between this and Mr. Summers bill was in
! two points. First, the substitute omitted
| all reference to churches, and second, il
| based the right OF federal interference upon
| the fact that the institutions were sup
| ported at the public expense, and not as
| Mr.. Summers bill did, upon mere facts OF
| incorporation.
Mr. Norwood, Of Georgia. argued against
| Mr.. Summers amendment as unconstitu
| tional, and calculated to nullify the laws OF
| several States prohibiting the intermar.
! rage Of blacks and whites. He thought
Mr.. Carpenters substitute also unconstitu-
tiOnal, and said he would cast his vote
against both amendments on that ground.
Mr.. Wilson said he would vote for Mr..
Summers amendment just because it went
so far and in the clearest and most positive
manner made distinction on account of
color illegal in the United States. The
question of intermarriage raised by Mr..
Norwood had been settled in Massachusetts
thirty years ago. That State had repealed
her law on the subject at that time, and all
predictions of dreadful results that were TO
follow had sgnaly failed. A great deal
had been heard for years about the superb
Ority Of the white race, and the marked
distinction between the whites and blacks,
but everywhere abundant evidence was to
be seen that those distinctions had often
been disregarded. He wished to see all
laws based on difference of race abolished,
as it was unchristian. inhuman and undem-
ocratic.
Mr.. Pomeroy thought that the people of
Georgia and other States could be trusted
to choose their wives and husbands with
out the interference Of any law. He OBJ
,jected to the phrase used by Mr.. Wilson,
the different races of men," he knew but
one race-the human race.
Mr.. Anthony hoped that Mr. Sumner
exempting churches from the bill. He
would vote 10 give the colored people all
civil rights, but he would not vote for
bill comforting or denying or in any way in
terfering with their religious rights
Mr. Sumner advocated his own bill, and
called Mr.. Carpenters substitute an emas-
culated synonym, feeble where the original
was strong, and incomplete where the orr
ginal was complete. He objected especially
to the omission from the substitute of the
provision enforcing the admission of coloIed
citizens to the Jury box. Mr.. Carpenter had
attempted to distinguish between the right
to testify and the right to sit as a juror. He
fSumner) cared not whether the right to sit
as juror was a political or civil right 1t
was enough for him to know that it was a
right to which all men were entitled by the
law of nature and by the constitution of the
United States, interpreted by the Declare
ton of Independence. He saw that Mr..
Carpenter smiled. He always smiled when
the declaration was mentioned.
Mr.. Carpenter-It was a smile of appro-
baton. Laughter
Mr.. Sumner-Fery well; bat not content
with striking at the colored citizen in the |
temple of justice, the Seuator sets up a dis !
,inction i'll the church-a distinction. how
ever, in which he is not original, for he has |
been anticipated by Reverend Petroleum |
V. Nasty, who reports his congregation to |
have sung, on a certain occasion, this hymn:
Shall niggers black this land possess
And mix with us up herei
Oh, no. my friend We rather guess
Wen never stand that ere
Laughter ON the floor and in the galleries. !
UT, ask II that Is not the Senators speech!
do not know that | need say any more.
Mr.. Carpenter-Oh, yes; 60 right on
Mr.\ Sumner will. as the Senator in
ties me. He sets himself up here as rep
esentative OF caste in Christian church.
nd, while espOusing that cause, pleads the
constitution of the United States. But sir.
think l can point out the origin of the
enator's error. l hesitate to refer to it. but
he Senator has introduced it himself The
enator has never had an adequate idea
f the Declaration of independence.
IT, |
he Senator smiles. Very well; / have
cen long enough in this chamber to wit
ess the vicissitudes Of opinion on that
reat magma charta. | have seen it derided |
Y others more than it was by the Senator |
'um Wisconsin.
Mr.. Carpenter-I wish the Senator would
ate when | ever derided the Declaration
Independence.
MIR. SUMNER am coming to that.
Mr.. Sumner then quoted remarks made
Y Calhoun. Choate and Andrew johnson |
1 the subject, aud said that in a speech in
pril, 1870, Mr.. Carpenter had spoken of
le principles set forth in the declaration
J ''the generalities of that revolutionary
He said lie referred to
lis with great reluctance.
Mr. Carpenter-I hope the reluctance is
IT on my account. Laughter.
Mr.. Sumner-When the Senator spoke
ST upon tUlS SUBJECT III was no ion
evolutionary prOnunciamento.
Mr.. Carpenter-Oh, yes. it Is. stand by
l glory in that revolutionary pro
lnciamento. in all that revolutionary his {
~ of ours.
Mr.. Edmunds-Then you ought 10 give
me effect to it.
Mr. Snmner-The Senator glories in it.
en, let him give it some effect. | hope he !
i'll not take it out IN glory. | hope he will !
e that some CT it is transtused into human !
ght.
Mr.. Carpenter-Yes: al that is consistent
ith the express provisions of the constitll- ..
On.
Mr.. Sumner-The constitution is a ma
iinc-a great and beneficent machine. The d
eciaration OF independence supplies the
inciples which are TO give character and :
otion TO the machine
Mr.. Carpenter said lie had Just heard
msef ridiculed, reviled and misrepre- {
nted because he had been unable to agree
it'll the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.
lmner) as to the merits of this bill. and l
I'd stated two points in which its consti- .
tienality seemed doubtful. He was in d
vOr OF the substance Of the bill and had
nbodicd in his substitute all OF it that was.
early constitutional; but the Senator .
ON Massachusetts did not seem to be
lxious tor the passage OF the bill to Sc i,
ire civil rights unless it had some branch
claw tearing into the constitution. will !,
1t speak disrespectfully of the declara-
IN, and if you will not attempt to violate
q constitution we will join hand in :
md in the support of the principles that
9 the foundation of your bill. The 7,
natOr has done me the honor to point y
1t my prototype in constitutional ar &
V. Nasty. laughter.
lat is one particular in which | must d
Nv to the Senator. l can not point out p,
8 prototype in a constitutional discussion; ! y