The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1875-03-02
OWL RIGHTS ELL.
Remarks OF Hon. George r. r.
nunds, i'm the senate, ON Satu

| AAcuuarRs Oh ZION. GEORGE r. Eu-
| nunds, in the senate, on Satur-
day.
MIR. Edmunds of W., said he would avail
| himself of this opportunity to say few
words in support OF this measure. While
| listening to the debate it occurred to him
that no measure of this kind, originated
| here since 1860, had received the approval
| of the democratic party, There had been
no measure either for suppressing the re-
bellion or securing the fruits of the war
which met its approval. He was not sur
prsed, therefore, when this measure to
protect the citizens of the United States in
their rights under the constitution came up,
to find this same party practicing its same
old tactics. The country had been told in
| platform gotten up at Cincinnati and en-
dorsed at Baltimore or somewhere else
that this party was going to accept what
had already TRANSFERRED that they favored
equal rights. But, when that single in
stance was passed, there was not one to
| show that that party had taken single
step to maintain and preserve the rights
which the amendments to the constitution
guaranteed. Take the 18th amendment,
and see whose votes passed it, Every
democratic senator in this body on the 11th
of April, 1864, voted against submitting to
the people of the various states an amend
ment to the constitution to abolish
slavery. Why did they do it?
Because they thought slavery should
not be abolished, and, when that
amendment was submitted to the states,
every democratic state which had demo-
cratic legislature, rejected it, the states of
Delaware, New Jersey and Kentucky. Why
did they do it? Because they had determined
that the government should not take a step
in favor OF equal rights. Again, when the
l4th amendment was proposed here, every
democrat recorded his vote against it, aid
ed by their allies, who, for want of offices,
or something else, had gone over. 1t, too,
was rejected by the democratic legislatures,
and some states, the moment they became
democratic, undertook to withdraw the rat
ification which had been previously given,
of which the state of New York was one.
Then came the 18th amendment, and every
democrat voted against it, and the demo-
cratic legislatures of California, Delaware,
Kentucky, Maryland, Oregon, Tennessee,
Ohio and New Jersey rejected it. That par
ty had said that slavery should not be
abolished, and had pursued the same bad
policy toward every act proposed in Con-
gress to maintain the supremacy of the
Union. There was not one of the recon-
struction acts which had a democratic
vote not single civil rights bill
which received such vote, and
when, after these measures were
adopted, and legislation to carry them into
effect was proposed, there was still the
same resistance on the part of the demo-
cratic party, the party which proposed to
favor equal rights. All this meant, what
the people of this country would fully UNI
derstand, that this is the same party which
claimed the government had no power to
resist secession, and which now claimed
that there was nothing IN the amendments
to the constitution to enable congress to do
anything. The meaning of it all, he ed
munds) believed, was that in the demo-
cratic platform Of many years from this
time there would be reaction. and il
would then say, we will have the Union
and the constitution, as they were, not as
they are. 1t would then be declared that
there was no life in any one of these amend
mcnts. Latterly it had been seen that
steps were taken in some of the southern
states to control labor, as they called it.
But 1t all amounted to involuntary servi-
tude. When he studied the history of the
progress of these affairs, he thought the
contest from 1S60-65 was not yet end
ed. He did not mean to say that arms
Wouiu pc tahcn kup 10 Hgnl IOr secession,
but, as was said by II southern gov
ernor, they would try to find some way
consistently with the letter of the constitu-
ton by which the old system might be re.
stored. lie then argued as to the duty OF
the federal government to protect all cit-
zens, and said the government was bound
to see that the rights of the citizen were
not invaded on pretense of religion, race or
anything else. The federal government
was bound to protect the citizens and not
turn them loose, subject to the turmoil,
passion and prejudices which might hap
pen from time TO time. The constitution
Of the United States protected the citizens
against class legislation, sectarian preju-
dlces and ten thousand other things What
was 1t 10 be a citizen of the United States,
II one could not be protected in all the inn
munities and privileges OF citizenship? The
senators on the other side seemed greatly
alarmed when these simple rights were put
in a statute book to carry out the constitu-
ton.
Before Mr.. Edmunds concluded, the
half-hour allowed him to close the debate
expired, and the bill was then read third
time and passed, yeas 3S, nays 20.