172 



CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



"The honorable member from Missouri asked, 

 and I think it was asked again by some one of 

 the other Senators upon the floor, whether 

 there was any thing in the Constitution of the 

 United States which declares that the States 

 shall be equal. The inference involved in the 

 question is true, if it is intended merely to 

 inquire whether there are any express terms to 

 be found in the Constitution declaring the 

 equality of the States; but, although there are 

 no such express terms, it seems to me to be 

 clear, beyond all reasonable doubt, and that 

 the Government could not exist if it was other- 

 wise, that there is absolute equality among 

 the States, as far as a question of this descrip- 

 tion is concerned. That state of equality is to be 

 gathered from almost every source. First, the 

 Convention itself was called by the people of 

 the States, acting in their separate capacity of 

 people of the several States. The States were 

 represented in the Convention as equals, each 

 having the same voice. The Constitution 

 adopted by the Convention was submitted to 

 the States afterward as equals; and if we 

 look into the Constitution itself we find that 

 all the provisions, which relate to the States as 

 such, show that in the intendment of the Con- 

 vention they were considered as equal. 



"Their representation in the House of Repre- 

 sentatives is founded upon the idea of equality; 

 their representation in this Chamber is founded 

 upon that idea ; and the Constitution provides 

 that that equality shall not at any time, even 

 by an amendment of the Constitution, be 

 changed. If we look at the nature of a State 

 government, the object of retaining the State 

 government, so to speak, or rather the purpose 

 of creating a general government endowed with 

 only certain specified powers, and the tenth 

 amendment of the Constitution which says in 

 so, many words that all the powers not dele- 

 gated to the General Government are to be 

 considered as expressly reserved to the States, 

 or the people of the States respectively, we 

 are led, as I think, only to one conclusion, 

 and that is, that in the judgment of the framers 

 of the Government of the United States, and 

 of the people by whom it was adopted, the 

 States were esteemed to be equal in all the 

 powers which they had not agreed to transfer 

 to the General Government. That being so, 

 the moment we ascertain in any particular in- 

 stance whether the power in question has or 

 has not been delegated to the General Gov- 

 ernment, and the result of the examination is 

 that there has been no such delegation, then 

 the power is in the States, not only from the 

 nature of the General Government, but 4^y 

 force of the tenth amendment of the Constitu- 

 tion which reserves to the States that power. 



" If, then, the General Government has not 

 the power to interfere with the franchise so as 

 to take from the States the absolute and uncon- 

 trollable power to regulate it directly, it would 

 seem to follow that they cannot do it indirectly. 

 I do not know whether the Judiciary Commit- 



tee has made a report upon the several bills or 

 resolutions which from time to time have been 

 referred to that committee, providing for the 

 regulation of suffrage throughout the States by 

 act of Congress ; but I suppose that that prop- 

 osition, if it shall be brought before the Senate 

 by the committee, will never receive the sanc- 

 tion of this body. I think all the indications 

 of the opinions of the members of the body 

 show that they do not believe the General Gov- 

 ernment has that authority. 



" Assuming, then, that it has not the author- 

 ity to interfere with the States which are now 

 in the Union beyond all dispute, the question 

 immediately before us is (to take the case of 

 Arkansas as the immediate one now pending), 

 assuming that Arkansas is not now a State but 

 is to become a State by our legislation, can' 

 we impose it upon her as a condition that she 

 shall surrender the right to regulate her fran- 

 chise so that at no time hereafter can she inter- 

 fere with it in contravention of the condition 

 upon which alone we agree to admit her ? If 

 we have that power, there is some way, of 

 course, of making its exertion effectual. That 

 must be true. It can never be true that the 

 General Government has a power which it can- 

 not exert practically. A former President of 

 the United States told us that he was of that 

 opinion ; that although he believed the States 

 had no authority to secede from the Union, 

 and that it was the duty of the General Gov- 

 ernment to prevent it, yet that it had no power 

 to enable it to execute that duty. That is not 

 my view. I think that all the powers that are 

 vested in the General Government it has the 

 means by legislation to execute, where they 

 fail to execute themselves by their very nature. 



"If it is so, Mr. President, that the power 

 exists in relation to a State which is not now 

 in the Union, but is to be brought into the 

 Union, and we impose it, then what becomes 

 of the equality of the States? Arkansas, that 

 being done, cannot change her franchise as 

 regulated by the Constitution, and made by us 

 a condition of the admission of the State. 

 New York can ; and so can every other State 

 now in the Union, not only without the con- 

 sent of Congress, but against its legislation. In 

 other words, as far as New York is concerned, 

 she is now just as absolutely the mistress of 

 the power to regulate the franchise as she was 

 before the Constitution of the United States 

 was adopted. So is Maryland ; so are all the 

 other States ; but Arkansas comes in with that 

 power denied her ; and that is inequality. * If 

 we have the right to exclude her except upon 

 the condition that she will abandon forever the 

 possession of that power which belongs to all 

 the other States, why have we not the right to 

 exclude her if she will not abandon all the 

 other powers that belong to the other States ? 

 Why not regulate the number of which her 

 Legislature is to be composed? Why not pro- 

 vide that there shall be only one branch ? Why 

 not provide that her judiciary shall be for life, 



