Year: 1866

Speech of Ex-Gov. Boutwell, of Massachusetts,.
delivered in the House of Representatives on the
bill relating to suffrage in the District of Colum-
bia:


Mr.. SPEA KRR 1t is only recently that enter
taired the purpose TO speak at all upon this bill,
and il my expectation to avail mvself of the
kindness of the Chairman of the judiciary Com
mittee to divi lie with him the time allotted him
by the rules of the House ut | accept the op-
portuDity w presented of speaking, before the
previous question is demanded. to state certain
views | enIertain on this bill l may say in the
beginning that am opposed to all dilatory
tIons upon this bill. | am opposed 20 the restric
tions moved by the gentleman from New York,
(Mr Hae,) because | see in them advantage
to any body and apprehend from their adoption
much evil to the country. 1t should be borne in
mind that when emancipated the black people
not only relieved ourselves from the nstitu-
ton OF slavery we not only conferred upon them
freedom, but we did more recognized their
manhood. which, by the old constitution ard the
genera policy and usage of the country, had been,
from the organic ,tion of the government until the
emancipation proclamation, denied to ali the en-
shaved colored people. AS a consequence of the
recognition Of their manhood, certain results fol-
low IN accordance with the principles of this gov
eminent, and they who believe in the government
by necessity for ed to accept these results
consequence of the policy of emancipation which
they have inaugura ed, and for which they are re-
sponsible. Bat to say now-haviDs given freedom
to this people-thgt they shall not enjoy the es-
sential rights and privileges of men. is to abandon
the principle OF the proclamation of emancipation,
and ticltly TO admit that the whole emancipation
policy is erroneous.


1t has been suggested that it is premature to
demand immediate action upon the question of ne
gro suffrage IN the District of Columbia. |
personally responsible for the observation that
there never has been day during session of
Congress since the Emancipation Proclamation
aye, since the negroes OF the District eman-
cipsted-when it not the duty of the Gov
ernment (Which, by the Constitution, is entrusted
with exclusive juri>dicion n the DISTRICT TO
Ter upon the men of this District, without dlstnc-
ton Of race color, the rights and privileges of
men, and, therefore, there can be nothing prema-
ture IN this measure. | cannot how any
who supports the Proclamation of Emancipation
which is a recognition OF the manhood OF the
whole colored people of this counfry-can hesitate
to his duty. And while | make no suggestion
to the duty OF other men, have a clear percep-
ton of my And, first, we are bound TO
treat the colored people 10 this District in regard
to the matter OF voting precisely treat white
people; and do not hesitate to express the opin-
ION that if the question here to-day were whether
eny qualification should be imposed upon white
voters in this District, If they alone concerned
this House would say Aye, not ten upon
this fl Dor would consider whether any qualification
u
cations suggested? J? They three.-tirst, and
most attractive, service in the army navy Cf the
United States. | shall have occasion TO say, il
discuss as hope to do, the nature and origin OF
the right OF voting that there Is not the least
possible connection between service in the army
and navy of the United States and the exercise
of the elective franchise. None whatever These
black men may have performed service. and ] an
for dealing justly with them because they have
performed service. But | more anxious TO
deal Justly by them because they men. And
when it is remembered that for months and al
most for years after the opening CT the rebellion,
refused TO accept the services OF co0red per-
in the armies of the country, it is with i'll
grace that decline to allow the vote OF any
m ~ because he has not performed that service


The second is the property qualification. |
hope it is not necessary ln this day and at this
hour Of the Republic to argue, anywhere, that
property justification is not only UNJUST in itself,
but that it is odious he people of this country
TO degree which cannot be expressed. Every
where, L believe for half century, It has been
repudIated by the people. Does anybody con-
template such qualification in the exercise of her
elective franchise in the case of black people
white?


And, next, re aiding and writing reading, ct
a qualification, is demanded, and appeal is made
to the example Of Massachusetts. / wish gentle
who appeal to Massachusetts, would often
appeal to her in other matters, where could more
conscientlously approve her policy. But 1t is a
different proposit ton in Massachusetts, as pract- (
cal measure. When, ten years ago, this qnalih-
cation imposed upon the people of Massa-
chusetts, it excluded person who was then
voter. For two centuries We have had IN Massa /
chusetts a system of public INSTRUCT ion, open TO
the children of the whole people, without money
and without price; therefore all the people there
have had opportunities for education. Now, why
should the example of such State be quoted to
justify refusing suffrage TO men who have been
denied the privilege of education, and whom II
has been a crime teach Is there difference? ?


suppose 1t will happen, even if you pass this
reading amendment that between any two annual
elections any negro twenty-one years OF age in +
this city, or who may come here, will acquire the +
ability read. The requirement will not exclude I
many men. Ny objection is not that in this Dis /
;rict it will exclude ID great number from the ex-
ercise OF the elective franchise, but object to it
a matter of principle. The right to vote is o
higher and better right than can be derived from (
the simple tact that can read.


have often elsewhere endeavored to trace the /
origin and nature Of the right to vote. believe /
that during this discussion the views en- ertain |
have not been stated, and tn herefore, with such !
brevity as | can command | will venture to state |
the opinion | entertain of the nature and proper /
limitations of the elective franchise. And while |
1t may not be natural right, like the right of To-
comotIon or other similar rights, still think can
offer suggestions deduced from the law of nature /


-
l accept as the basis of what | have to say, the |
great law of nature, supported by r,velaton-the (
e1isten e of the family-from which no people,
savage or civilized, has ever escaped. The family ]
exists by Divine authority. II is the first law OF
socety-of the community. IL is the cement OF
all States, snd 1t has generally idea-one
opinion-and one will upon all questions affecting
the fortunes of the family. or OF any of it's mem
bers. Thus the creation of man, and his doing-
after his creation, illustrate most conclusivey two
iacts-the existence Of the family ard the unity
of the will of the family. When we admit that
the family is the element of the State-the unit
OF society-that it has but one wl-what follows?
That whenever han one family is in exist ,
ence, and The question arises wha, saall be done
with reference TO the community of families, then
the families are to be consulted. Hence arises
the doctrine that there be no just government
except with the consent of the governed


w at mention next is that you have no right /
10 exclude from this consultation any one of the /