Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1889-04-26

Tho Amendments.

Our recent articles setting forth the man.
Ber In which the thirteenth, fourteenth, and
fifteenth amendments TO the Federal Consti-
tuition were nominally ratified have attracted
81 home aud abroad much more attention
than we bad expected them to command.
There was nothing new IN our statement OF
the facts. We simply gave truthful history
OF the amendments. However, 70 many
young men these facts were revelation.
They bad never had occasion 10 examine the
question Of the validity Of the new amend
mcnts. Older men had their memories re-
freshsd.
Hsrper's Weekly has not allowed this dis
eussion 20 escape its vIgilant eyes. 1t says:
CBAsaEs IL TIRE CONSTITUTIONAL
the last nineteen years, according 10 Dir.
McMsster, three hundred and ten amend
rncnts 70 the Constitution have been pro-
posed In Congress. But three only have
been adopted. These prohibit slavery aud
the restriction OF the rlght OF voting on ac>
count Of race, eOleT, or previous condition
OF servitude. They dedne citizens OF the
United States and the basis OF enumeration
for representatives. state certain disquSlihca'
tions for the offices OF Senator aud Repre-
sentative In Congress, aud affirm the vsliolty
of the public debt. That after the great civil
conyuIsiou. and in the natural and power
ful DRIFT toward national centralizs-
ten which succeeded the war, so
little change should have been made In the
organic law, and that little so wisely COM
prehensive Of the essential and fundamental
results OF the war IL sipgilarly illustrative
OF the moderation and good sense OF the
neople. The same calm Intelligence has been
shown In the Judicial Interpretation OF these
amendments 10y the Supreme Court Tue
Richmond Dispatch has argued recently
however. that The three amendments were
not constitutionsly adopted. Its general
ground is that the thirteenth amendment,
prohibiting slavery. "payed The way TOT ire
fourteenth aud fifteenth y; that this was rati'
fed by the casting vote OF West Virginia;
that thiS state never had constitutional OK.
istfnce because il was formed and erected
ynoHV within the inrisdictlOn OF virginia
and that, according 10 the properly-pune'u-
sied constitutional clause relating 10 the SUBJ
ject. such erestion was not permissible.
But the Displtch states that il argues only
for the truth OF history. and not with the eX-
peciat,on Of changing the fact that the
amendments are DOW part OF the COnstitu-
ton. 1t is what is called an academic argu-
ment- for The pleasure OF dialectics, and not
I've thought Characteristic Of what was called
the southern school OF politics. But II has
an uusirious precedent IN Mr.. Webster's
argument in favor OF the assent OF the
Senate to removals, which, even against
The authority Of Madison, he held
10 be the true constitutional doc
trine He agreed, however, that the con-
temporary decision Of Congress and the long
and uniform practice bad practically settled
the question. This conclusion ia equally
sound 10 regard TO the amendments that fol-
lowed the war. BE- the action OF every
branch OF the Government, and The sc-
quiescence OF the country, their validity Is
placed beyond question, and the discussion
belongs really TO the realm Of casuistry. To
cousider either their validity or their repeal
a. bearing upon the question OF suffrage in
the southern states is useless. They ere
The fundamental law OF the land, and they
will not be repealed.
tits evident that the Weekly did notiu-
tend to treat us unfairly or TO misrepresent
our position. But il gives a totally inace-
quats-not TO say mislesdiHg-coDden
Of our argument, or rather OF our third and
concluding article. which seems to have been
the only one that II has read. Those persons
who recall the circumstances attending the
alleged ratification OF the new amendments
will be surprised TO see that Mr.. CURTIS
can find 1t in his heart 70 characterize
"calm intelligence the feeling or the
motive that governed the conduct OF THAD.
STEVENS and his felow.conspirators in their
foray upon what the war had left OF the
South. We are not at all sorry that slavery
was abolished. On the contrary we rejoice
over It's abolition, but we cannot shut our
ewes TO the iaettbat II was abolished in direct
violation OF the Federal Constitution and
With total disregard Of the question Of good
faith involved in that measure. In word,
and to be candid. slavery was abolished by a
fraud upon the people and fraud upon the
Constitution.
But we shall not reproduce our historical
sketch. 1t may be found 10 the Dispatch Of
the %, 80, and 4th Of this month.
The "Weesly's" reference to Mr.. WEE
sTER is interesting. But there was no ques.
tion OF good faith or Of the validity OF any
section Of the Constitution involved In Mr..
sBSTgB's discussion OF the power OF the
iAp,iuthN W ttitNNN btuN'f5 WiehNht thN Nou~
sent OF the Senate. lie simply discussed a
question OF construction.
$50 little change la the organic law"
quolh the "Weekly"! $50 little change"
when slaves were converted into citizens
AID the governing power taken out OF the
bands Of Intelligence and put into the
bands Of Ignorance; when thousands Of
Millions Of dollars worth Of property was
destroyed by the strong arm OF force !;
when manacles were put upon the hands OF
the governing class in the South aud the
bonds OF their slaves were brokenl
however, We did not set out TO discuss
this matter anew, and so we will stop; first,
however, reminding The reader that ten
years ago the Dispatch would have been
vigorously denounced for such articles as
those now under consideration.