Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1890-01-26
SUNDAY. JANUARY 26. 1890.
A Question.


Chicago Tribune discussed at some length
che question whether State (particu-
larry Virginia. had the right. according
90 the teachings of the fathers of
The republic, 10 secede from tho Union.
No doubt was expressed by either journal
as TO the fact that at present no such right
exists. We succeeded poorly in our effort
20 convince the Tribune that our view OF
che matter was the correct one, and had to
set that journal down as one Joined to its
Idols." In fact its present condition is
worse than its condition was when we IN
dcrtook the hopeless task of convincing 1T
that Virginia, when shcratifed the Federal
Constitution, expressly reserved the right
10 secede from the Union. Here is speci-
men of Chicago wit copied from tho Tri-
b,1N:
"Maiah Jones will have to admit sooner
or later that when he tried TO take Georgia
out Of the Union he committed q treasona-
BILE act"
We wish to raise new pointer the con-
sideration Of our Chicago contemporary.
Article V. Of the Federal Constitution. as it
has always stood. contains the following
proviso;
Provided, "that no State. without its
consent, shall be deprived of its equal SUI
frage in the Senate"
This proviso ends the article prescribing
how amendments may DO made to the
Constitution. 1t was put into the Consti-
tuition by men who held, so we contend,
that IL the proviso above quoted was vio-
lated the State losing its equal representa-
ton in the Senate had thepower to protect
Itself by seeding from the Union. Tho
fathers never believed in the use of force
20 compel State to remain in the Union.
But what is this proviso worth now
that the States no longer possess the right
90 secede from the Union? This provlso
can be stricken from the Constitution just
as easily as were all the provisions of
that instrument which were changed or
abolished by the ratification OF the
thirteenth. fourteenth. and fifteenth
amendments. In that event the lit
tle New England States would have
no right to complain. The fruit they
would thus be compelled to eat would be
of q tree of their own planting. They
would have absolutely no redress, but
would be as helpless and as powerless as
were the southern people when oil their
slaves were wrested from thom by the
strong arm of the Government in viola
tion of tho Constitution itself, and by
methods which tainted the alleged ratif-
cations of those amendments with un-
blushing fraud.
Let us suppose that the proyiso under
consideration should be removed from the
Constitution in the manner in which the
thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth
amendments were ratified. it would have to
be done thus Congress would declare
half dozen States, naming them. to be out
side of the Union. or, rather, not entitled
20 representation in Congress, and provide
that these States should not be allowed
representation in that body until they
should ratify an amendment striking out
of the Constitution the proviso intended
10 secure to all the States equal representa-
ton in the Senate. Thus were the thir-
teenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amend
ments ratified.
What says the Trib,snes Would an
amendment foisted into the Constitution
precisely as tho three latest amendments
were foisted into that instrument operate
todeprive Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont,
Rhode Island, and Connecticut of their
equal representation in the Senate ? If not,
what would their remedy be? They have
no right to secede. They have no power
20 protect themselves in any way.
This Ia not merely an abstract question.
The fixed purpose of good many people in
this country is to have representation in
che Senate based upon population. We call
che attention of our Chicago contemporary
20 the question as one that may soon be-
come practical one.
Finally, what sense was there in putting
such provision into the Federal Const-
tuition if it is within the power of Congress
and the States to strike it out just as other
features have been stricken out, aud the
States suffering from this violation Of good
faith have no right to secede from the
Union2 The Tribune says that Virginia's
ordinance reserving the right to secede
proves that she had no right to secede.
So no doubt il will contend that the incor-
poration into the Constitution OF the pro-
Siso under consideration is proof positive
that the smaller States knew that they
could constitutionally be deprived OF
their equal suffrage in the Senate!