The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1876-07-14
MORE OF THOMAS A. HENDRICKS.

quasi endorsement Of the constitutional
amendments by the St. Louis convention,
10 connection with the record Of Thomas
A. Hendricks-in that he voted against al
lowing colored men to be witnesses,
against allowing honorably discharged
Unlon negro soldiers to vote In the District
Of Columbia, ag ilnst prohibiting the coast
| wise slave trade, and against the
thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth
| constitutional amendmepts-we aek-
ed if it would be any safer to
trust him with legislation on questions
growing out of the constitutional amend
nents than it would with the financial
question? Although we did not answer
he query, the fair inference, from what
We said, would be that we did not think it
would be safe to trust him, that the coun-
| Try could not afford to take the risk. And
,uch is our opinion. Inasmuch as one of
| he speakers at the recent democratic rati-
| tication-Mr. Chids-saw fit to make a
| portion Of our article the basis for his re-
| marks, and laid great stress on the fact
| hat the constitution could not be amended
| without vote of three foGrths of the states
| We have a word luther to say relative to
| Governor Hendricks record.
AS a starting point, let us fret see ex-
.cty what this declaration of the st. Louis
convention, made by way of recital, is. 1t
reads thusly "We do here reatirm our
= devotion to the constitution of the United
States, with its amendments universally
accepted as final settlement of the con-
troversies that engendered civil war"
| This, be it remembered, ia all that was
aid upon the subject. What does it de-
are? That they accept the constitution
i amendments, and will not countenance
my attempt to disturb them Not at all.
hat the amendments are accepted by
hem or by anybody else as settlement of
he controversies growing out of the war !?
Not at all. That they will not attempt to
sturb the results secured by the war !?
Not at all. That they are opposed to the
epudation of the national debt, and the
sumption of the rebel debt, to depriving
;olored men of the right of suffrage, to
bridging or denying the right to vote on
ccount of race or color, or to denying the
quail protection of the law to all ? For
II there is contained in their recital, they
re at full liberty TO do any one or all of
hese things, if they should be restored to
,ower. They simply declare that the con-
titutional amendments are universally
accepted as final settlement of the con-
troversies that engendered civil war
hat is to say, OF the controversies relative
% slavery and the right of secession. That
all there is of it.
But Thomas A. Hendricks does not even
20 as far as this, as we propose to show by
MS own utterances, and those of his only
lorthern colleague IN the senate who voted
With him uganst the constitutional amend
nent abolshng slavery. The constitution
rovidos that "the congress, whenever
two-thirds of both houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose amendments >
hereto, which when ratified by three
ourths of the states shall become part of
ne constitution. At the time when the
thirteenth amendment-tba declaring that
ne national debt should ever be held
scred, and the rebel debt should never be
ssumed or paid-was proposed there
we're thirty-six states in the Union, SO
hat full senate would have consisted of
eventy-two senators. Only thirty-three
enators-ess than one. half Of full SEN
re, but more than two.thirds of the senate
then constituted in its favor, and
he presiding officer ruled that two-thirds
# a quorum being present and voting in its
avor, the joint resolution proposing the
amendment was adopted on the part of the
enate. To this ruling the democracy OBJ
ected, claiming that the "voe being a
final vote should have relation to all the
states as recognized under the constitu.
ton" and that fo,ty-eight votes were
necessary for its adoption. That claim
las never been abandoned, and if tile claim
IS sound, tile thirteenth, fourteenth ana
ffteenh amendments are not a part Of til,
,onstitution. This is the position Thomas
\. Hendricks occupies, and again we ask
it saf 10 trust him?
But Thomas A. Hendricks goes ever
tntber than this. He holds that the M,r
zenith amendment does not abolish slage,.y
lie holds that slavery cannot be abolished
y the constitution. We will give his owl
words when speaking of the proposed thir
zenith amendment-he identical amend
nent that was adopted. He SAID in hi
'ace in the senate 81 am not satisfied
that this proposed amendment is one tina
= can be m ide to the constitution. The
institution of slavery is domestic in
stituiion. 1t exists, not by virtue of thu
= federal constit alton, not by virtue of an,
law passed pursuant to the constitution
of the United States, but it had its exist
'ence before the formation of the fedora
compact, before the establishment of tn
. federal constitution. 1t Is enough I,
"know that this institution existed befor
the revolution in the colonies that /
continued during the revolution that |
came with the colonies into their state O
. independence and separate stat
g sovereignty; and when the colonies cam
" into the federal compact they did no
submit that institution, or their other do
'mestic institutions, to the control of tn
4" federal government The federal gov
8 eminent has had nothing to do with thu
." ins tuition of slavery, txl ept So far as By
compromise 1t was protected and respect
ed. | am not satisfied that this is al