Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1876-12-06

e.
strict party vote.
Senator Edmunds then modified his rcso-
luton 30 as 20 authorize the committee to ez-
tend IL, inquiry to the elections Of 1874 IN the
States named.
On motion of Senator Conkling the reso-
lution was lald aside for the present. and the
message Of the President was read. 1t was
ordered that il be printed with the accom-
pauyiHg documents, and the usual motion TO
print extra copies was entered to be hereafter
referred TO the committee on printing.
Senator Withers submitted 4 resolution re-
queyting the President TO inform the senate,
ii not incompatible with the public interest,
under what authority and for what purpose
troops Of the United States occupied the CITY
Of Petersburg. Virginia, on the seventh day
Of November, 1876, the day of election.
Objection was made by Senator Edmunds
and the resolution was laid over.
Senator Thurman suggested that the raso-
luton Of the senator from Vermont in regard
to the inquiry IN various southern States be
laid over anti tomorrow, and be printed
with the changes made.
Senator Edmunds said he could not con-
sent to it going over. He felt 1t to be his
duty TO ask the senate to act upon il to-day.
Senator Thurman said that the senator
from Vermont had argued that the adoption
of this resolution would not commit the sGn-
ate to any particular doctrine or dogma. He
Thurman denied this and contended that it
did commit the senate. He cOntended that
there had been no violation of the constitu-
ton of the United States by any of the States
named in the resolution. These States gave
suffrage to everybody, and nothing was in the
constitution of either Of them or in any Of
Of their statutes that restricted suffrage. Tn
der the recent amendments to the conStitu
tion, these States could have prescribed edu-
catlOnai or property qualifications, to exclude
the colored man, but they did not do so 1t
was said that this inquiry could be set on foot.
1t was entirely outside of the constitution,
and 1t was based alone upon newspaper ar
ticies.
Senator Edmunds said that the laws and
statutes OF several Of these States operated to
deny suffrage.
Senator Thurman denied that there was
any such law in either of the States, and the
senator Edmunds could lot produce any
such statute The laws Of those States acted
alike on white and cOlored voters Who had
4 possession Of South Carolina and Louisiana
since the war? the Republican party. Who
had possession of Alabama until within
the last two years? the Republican party.
Yet it was claimed that the right of the col
\ ored voter had been abridged. The intent of
question Of intimidation and furnish satisfac-
tory reasons for these returning boards throw
iag out votes and elecing other men than
those chosen by the people. Six States were
involved in this resolution. Why did not the
Senator from Vermont extend It everywhere?
Had he never heard of employees in the great
manufactures being marched up to the polls
( and made to vote as their employers, who
stood at the windows, dictated?
Senator Edmunds-I never heard of bat
one instance Of that kind, and that was the
case Of a Democratic manufacturer in Con-
nectlcut, who made his employees vote the
/ Senator Thurman-Then the senator is The
most ignorant man who lives in New England.
: |Feuohfer
ilesuming nIs argument, Senator Thurman
SAID that the committee on privileges and
! elections was composed of nine members, and
that 1t was impossible for that committee, sit
ting in Washington, to make the investiga-
ton and report by February The committee
could take depoSitions, but who was to be
served with the notice to examine? As
to the last resolution in regard to the eligi-
biity of electors, he Thurman was not sure
bat that he could support it out; he desired
more time te study il. lfthe returning boards
IN the south had good reason to throw out
votes and override the will of the people, he
wanted it to be shown; and if it could not be
: shown, he wanted their villainy to be ex-
posed; he wanted the facts to be known.
Senator Elmunds, in reply to a question Of
Senator Thurman, said he would not inform
the senator from Ohio as to which of the
States had abridged the right of suffrage by
statute inasmuch as he (Edmunds) had been
set down as the most ignorant man IN New
England If MS friend Thurman, the most
lo
tuition ard laws of the United States, he
would find out something to his advantage.
| Senator Edmunds, further replying to Sem
at0r Thurman, argued that the artisans and
| operatives of New England are men of in
telhgence, men of education, Of property, of
independence, Of self-respect, and he was
even more than a very hardy man indeed
who ever ventured to suggest to his employees
how they should exercise the right Of suf-
frage The artisans and operatives Of New
4 England were men who built churches and
| schO0lhOuses, and sometimes carried their
knowledge, energy and industry to the west
ern cOuntry-eyen to Ohio. Laughter. He
argued that the whole object of this resolu-
ton was to correct an evil and fix the repre-
! sentatlon In the next house of representatives;
/. 1t had nothing to do with the Presidential
4 election.
/ Senator Morton said if the preamble of the
resolution recjting one provision OF the four
1 teenth amendment shOuld be cut off, no one
would deny the power of the senate to make
the inquiry He then read the resolution
adopted by the house of representatives yes
terday, and argued that if it was legitimate
for the Democratic house of representatives
to make such inquiry, it certainly was compe-
tent for a Republican senate to do the same
thing.
past he had believed that the peace Of the
country and the tranquility which the consti-
tuition of the United States intended 20 pro-
tect had all been threatened by the laws
passed by the congress of the United States.
He argued that congress had no right to IN
lertake the control of the several States. He
had come TO this session of congress more Sc
riously impressed with the Over-hangIng pres
ence Of the dangers to our form Of govern
ment than ever before. and he had come con-
vinced that it was his duty to oppose, success
fully or unsUccessfully, this consolidated
march which the Republican party had set
on foot. He proposed to stand by the strict
construction OF the constitution, and denied
that in any of the southern States there had
been discrimination agaInt the voters on ac-
count Of race or color by any law or statute
of such States There was coming to this
senate, and toi this people, time when
their love of law would be tested, and he
proposed to stand upon that law and let the
consequences take care Of themselve. The
duty O. senators was not as party men, not
as Democrats, not as Republicans, but as
Americans to do all in their power to uphold
the constitution as handed down to US by
our fathers, and not undertake the settlement
Of questions not confded to the senate or
congress by the constitution.
On motion of Senator Whyte 1t was or
dered that the resolutions of Senator Ed
munds be voted on separately. He said that
he would vote against the first three resOlu-
tons because he accepted the decision Of the
supreme court Of the United States IN con-
STRUNG the fourteenth amendment. In re-
gard to the recent election in some of the
States he was in favor Of immediate and
prompt action, and be proposed to offer a
substitute for the last resolution which would
cause q thorough scrutiny of the election in
those States.
Senator Merrimon submitted an amend
ment ID the first resolution providing that
the committee shall be confined to inquiry as
TO whether the right of any person to vote
had been denied or abriged by the const:tu-
ton or laws Of said States. Rejected. Yeas,
q: navs. 30: a strict party votes