136 



CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



remember that it is utterly impossible that any 

 State should be an independent republic which 

 does not entirely control its own laws with 

 regard to the right of suffrage. Nor does it 

 make the slightest difference with regard to 

 this that any abdication or abnegation of its 

 power is voluntary. It may be said that it is 

 proposed that the States shall voluntarily re- 

 linquish their power to control the subject of 

 suffrage within their respective limits. Sir, 

 suppose a State should voluntarily assume upon 

 itself a foreign yoke, or declare by a majority 

 of its own people, or even by a unanimous 

 vote, that it would prefer a monarchy, would 

 the fact of its being voluntary at all affect the 

 question whether it was still an independent 

 republic ? 



" Now, sir, it may be that the people of this 

 country in their present condition of mind are 

 ready to relinquish the power in the States of 

 regulating their own laws with regard to suf- 

 frage ; and if it should so prove, and the result 

 should show that your own State (Ohio) and 

 my State (Connecticut), having once or twice 

 voted against extending the right of suffrage 

 to the negro race, should now consent that a 

 central power should regulate that question, 

 and should do this voluntarily and freely, 

 nevertheless they would by that action lose 

 their character as republican governments. 

 And, sir, that is the reason why it was that in 

 the formation of the Constitution of the United 

 States there was an entire neglect to interfere 

 in the slightest degree with the question of 

 suffrage in the several States. Look through 

 the Constitution as it was formed, and you 

 find no allusion whatever to the question of 

 suffrage, except by reference to existing laws 

 and qualifications in the then existing States. 



" It was the principle that an independent 

 republic must necessarily control the question 

 of suffrage in its own elections. This lies at 

 the very foundation of all government, and it 

 is therefore wholly impossible for any State 

 to be an independent republic or an indepen- 

 dent government in which the right of suf- 

 frage is controlled by an external power, 

 whether by the consent of that State or against 

 its consent. For that reason, when it is pro- 

 posed to amend the Constitution of the United 

 States in this respect, it is very questionable 

 whether it is not an amendment which subverts 

 the whole foundation and principle of the Gov- 

 ernment. Suppose an amendment were offered 

 here to-day proposing that this Government, 

 instead of being a republic, should be a mon- 

 archy ; suppose it were proposed to strike out 

 the clause of the Constitution guaranteeing a 

 republican form of government to each State, 

 and instead of that to insert a guarantee of a 

 monarchy to each State. I do not know that 

 this amendment would not be within the 

 power of Congress to propose. The Consti- 

 tution provides that Congress may propose 

 such amendments as in its own judgment it 

 shall think best and proper. If a proposition 



of that kind were made, it is very true it might 

 be objected, ' This goes to the foundation of 

 your Government; this is not amendment; 

 it is revolution, it is subversion.' Can that 

 not be said in this instance ? Is the proposed 

 amendment any more a fair carrying out of 

 the intention of the Constitution when it 

 provides for its own amendment than it would 

 be if it proposed directly to subvert the form 

 of government, if it be true that the right of 

 exercising and controlling the power of suf- 

 frage must necessarily exist in a State or it 

 ceases to be a republic ? " 



Mr. Ferry : "I move to amend the recital in 

 the proposed amendment by striking out the 

 words ' the Legislatures of and inserting the 

 words 'conventions in,' and also where the 

 word ' Legislatures ' occurs in the second place 

 to insert the word ' conventions ' in lieu of it. 

 I find that the Constitution merely refers to 

 ' conventions.' " 



The President pro tempore : " The amend- 

 ment will be read." 



That the following article be proposed to conven- 

 tions in the several States as an amendment to the 

 Constitution of the United States, which, when rati- 

 fied by three-fourths of said conventions, shall be 

 valid as part of the Constitution, etc. 



Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, said: "I will state 

 what I understand to be the principle of the 

 Constitution in relation to amendment, and I 

 ask the attention of the honorable Senator from 

 Kansas for one moment to the proposition. 

 The great leading idea of the amendment which 

 he proposes is, that no citizen of the United 

 States should have any right whatever that 

 every other citizen is not entitled to share. Do 

 I understand the honorable gentleman's idea? " 



Mr. Pomeroy : " My idea is that civil and 

 political rights belong to all citizens alike ; I do 

 not mean the rights of private property." 



Mr. Davis: "We understand each other. 

 Now, I lay down the proposition with more 

 distinctness, with more truth and philosophy 

 than the honorable Senator's proposition, that 

 each State in the Union is entitled under our 

 Constitution to all the rights and privileges that 

 any or every other State is entitled to. Here 

 is the State of Virginia, with all her illustrious 

 history and with all of her Eevolutionary remi- 

 niscences, excluded by force and violence from 

 her just representation in the Senate of the 

 United States. Here is the State of Mississippi 

 in the same predicament. Here is the State 

 of Texas in a like predicament. Here is the 

 State of Georgia in a sort of hybrid condition, 

 neither flesh nor fowl, neither fish nor bird, 

 fully represented, I believe, in the other branch 

 of Congress, and without a voice in this assem- 

 bly of the conscript fathers of the nation ; and 

 in this condition of things the Senate of the 

 United States undertakes the burlesque of 

 gravely amending the Constitution of the United 

 States! 



" Sir, I say it is not competent for the Senate 

 of the United States to act, in this state of its 



