Rensselaer Union, Volume 3, Number 24, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 9 March 1871 — SENATOR MORTON'S SPEECH. [ARTICLE]

SENATOR MORTON'S SPEECH.

•a th* Jbtnt Nesolmton of lite Stale of Indian* UeclailnK the Hal* ificallon as the Flfeemh Amendment by th > t Slato Nall and Void. The following La one of the Indiana resolutions: “ fMotnrf, farther, by the authority aforeaald. That Oongreaa haa no lawful power, derived from the OonaUUilioti ot the Vnlted stater, nor front any other source whatever, to require any State ot the Union to ratify an amendment to the Constitution Of the United Slater ar a condition precedent to representation In I'oncrerr; that all each acta of ratification are unit and void, and the voter eo obtained oueht not to Ire counted to udect the right of the people aud the Stateeof the whole Vnlon; and that the Stale of Indiana protest* a: d ’ eolemoly declarer tnar-the aiFctlled Eli eeuth Amendment I* not this day, nor never has been In law, a part of the tfonstitutlon of the I uited Staler. In the United States Senate, Febrluiry 15, Mr. Morton, of Indiana, said This resolution declares that the ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment by the Legislature of Indiana -was null and void b. cause of the absence of a eowtftitutional quorum, and that the amendment has not been adopted, because Virginia, Mississippi, Texas and Georgia ratified ilt under the provisions of acts of Congress making such ratification a condition pre cedent to their representation in Cbngress. The last objection would lie equally total to the Fourteenth Amendment, but wn< not urged against it, for the reason, perhaps, that the honorable gentleman proposing the resolution had «dv< rated the Fourteenth Amendment and indorsed its adoption as complete. But every argument to prove that the Fifteenth Amend ment has not been adoptid is equally applacible to the Fourteenth, ai.d both must stand or fall together. It is insis’ed that by making the ratification of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments by the late rebel States a condition of their restoration to r< presentation in Congress, their several acts ot ratification were me.de under c ercioa and ; duress, and were null and void, ai.d that ‘ the amendments not havi-ug bum-ratified by three-fourth of the States, not counting the late rebel States, have not been adopted and are not put of the Constitution of the United States. This proposition proceeds upon the hypothesis that the people ot the rebel .‘•tales lost no rights by going into the rebellion; that as they had be„-.:ovirconi> ■.p the field of battle they were entitled, ipso facto, to resume-their representation in Congress jtjst as if nothing had occurred, j and that by overcoming them in - arms we j merely conquered.thyin back into the cn- I joyment of full political ngfiS

It further assumes that when the people j of certain States had inairguratejl awLpro- ! secuted for years a bloody reltellion. which ( had only been overcome by a vast.ex;>-mli-ture of blood and treasure, the people of | the other States', who had remained loyal, and borne the heat an I burden of the-con-flict, had no right to ask guarantees for the future good conduct of their late enemies to the enjoyment of political power. These doctrines, soabhofrent to common sense, are the foundation upon which is placed the right to nullify the amendments. The position taken by the friends of the government was that treason was a crime, and carried with it the forfeiture of political rights; that when the people of the rebel States withdrew their Senators and-j Representatives from Congress, formally declared.their severance from the Union, and attempted to fonu a new and hostile government, they forfeited their right to representation in Congress, and could not resume it merely because they bad b.en defeated in battle, but only by the permission and upon 'J'.econditioiis pre-enbed by those who had remained true to their country, acting through the Government of the United States. The whole trouble with the Democratic party is that it fails to perceive the wrongfulness of the rebellion. That fact once admitted, all the consequences which we claim, forfeiture upon the one side, rights and powers upon the other, follow ineviÜbly. Need Largue.thaL.the peqele who remained true to the government had a right to protect themselves against future rebellion? Need I argue that when a rebellion has been suppressed rebels have not an equal right with loyal men to prescribe the terms of peace? If there be any difference between right and wrong, between loyalty’ and treason, I need not argue these questions. ~ >. Assuming, therefore, the wrongfulness of the rebellion, and that treason was a crime which carried with it the forfeiture of political rights, and that the loyal people of the United States, acting through the government, had a right to exact guarantees for their future peace and safety, I come to the question how those guarantees were to be obtained, and how that security could be taken. Is it not obvious that those guarantees should be placed in a law as nearly as possible irreversible ? that the security to be valuable must be written down in the Constitution of the United States, and placed beyond the reach of those fluctuations in parties which occur so frequently in a government like ours*

This conslueion, so reasonable, was at once adopted, and the guarantees' were proposed in the form of amendments to I the constitution,- and the restoration’ of the late rebel States to rtpresentation in ! Congress made dependent upon their rat- i ification. According to the theory of some dis- ■ Anguished statesmen these amendments I could be adopted without the consent oi any of the rebql States: They held that those States by' going into the rebellion had ceased to be States, and were hel l as conquered provinces to be disposed of hkoother territories, and that the ratisication o£ the ameniments by three-fourths remaining States was sufficient. T “ e was that the rebel States I were still to as States in the ' Lnion, but f or f e j te( j their right to ; such conditions as were s .^ on 1} upon the ftiture safety of the natißP atl^ e ; consistent with the Constitutiv no * ln ’ I United States. <J f lhe I This latter theory seems to have be>. the one adopted by Congress in proposing the amendments and in the enactment of the reconstruction laws. Bv the reconstruction acts of 1867, the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment by the late rebclKtates was made a condition to their final restoration to political rights. Afterward, and before Virginia, Mississippi, Texas and Georgia had complied with the conditions, the Fifteenth Amendment became a manifest necessity to the peace and safety of the nation, and Congress required those four States, in addition to the terms prescribed in the acts 0f1867, to ratify the Fifteenth Amendment before final restoration. i

Now the aigument is that this condition was unconstitutional; that the people of those States had a right to representation already, and had such a richt from the very moment they laid downYheir arms. If the rebel States forfeited no rights by going into the rebellion, then their ratification of the amendments was as valid as if made after being restored to representation, for they were States vested with original powers to ratify amendments be—fore as well as after. If they were still to be counted as Statea, but regarded as having lost their right to representation! by having willfully abandoned it, and engaging in the rebellion, it was cl* arly competent for Congress to prescribe the terms upop which" they should be restored to its enjoyment . But if, on the other hand, they hail lost their State character, which was only restored by their admission to yeprosenta-

tion, such new admission into the Union, by a well recognized principle of constitutional law would relate back and villi—date their previous acts ratifying the amendments. The constitution provides that Senators shall bo chosen by the Legislatures of the Stilts, bnF it has always been held that the ndn.is'ion of a State into the I ni"n validated a previous election of Senators while vet a Territory. Sticl;, also has bet n the uniform con stmetjon where Territories proposing to be admitted ns Stales have been required by Congress to enact certain laws, or comply with certain termsfis condi ions precedent to their adtuission. Their subsequent admission has'tril ways lieen held to relate hick, and validate .-ucli enactments or agreements. If the Territory of Colorado, now seeking admission into the Union, was required by Congress to ratify the Fif eenth Amendment a- a condition precedent, and having done so,, was afterwafdh admitted, would any one doubt that such a ratification would be legpl and bindihg* But I come now to consider the declaration, that requiring ths rebel States to ratify the amendments as conditions to their restoration, was coercion an-1 duress that renderei their action null and void, nr, ; l that the right to representation in Congress was absolute, and unaffected by participating in the rebellion. If the people of the loyal States had a right to prescribe tiny conditions, then, those contained in the amendments were legitimate ami proper. They were reasonable, just in tic inselves, and were considered vital to the safety of the nation. If, therefore, the right existed to prescribe the conditions, it was not coercion or duress to require compliance with them. If 1 have the right to prescribe the terms upon which I will convey my house to my neighbor, it’ cannut lie coercion or duress when hKiicCeifis them, and to give to this transaction the slightest color of coercion or duress, if must be imide to ap pear that the Southern States and the people of the Southern States lost no rights under the Constitution by going into the rebellion, and that immediately Upon their .defeat they bail a right to resume their high plan' s in. the- government they had just failed to destroy. And the argument, pushed to its conclusions would entitle them to representation j at t,he very ting- they were prosecuting the rebellion, for it cannot be urged with any’show of reason that defeat in battle I and submission to superior power has the i effect to restore a constitutional right that has Ix-en lost. The rebel States were in nowise compelled to ratify the amendments. They could ratify them and be restored, dr r fuse to ratify them and remain in the condition in which they had placed themselves. , Their situation was -erftwelyoff- tlieir own making. Tirey had voluntarily, aiid against the prayers of all j loyal men, withdrawn their Senators and - I Representatives from Congress, and at-. I tempted to cut loose from the government, ; and if we had left them for an indefinite i jieriod to lie in their bed as they had made it, they ce ll hl not have justly complained. But. not asking indemnity for the past, we said to them, give us security for the future, an I we will restore you to the full fraternity of the Republic. They gladly responded to the oiler, and by overwhelming majorities in every Shite, and with the assurances of good faith, accepted the I terms that wtre prescribed; and having accepted the terms without protest, how i absurd it is for other States to plead that ‘ their action was under duress, and not i binding upon them. But it may be said we offered the rebel States inducement to ratify the amendments. That may be true, but inducement is not coercion or duress. Inducement is the great mainspring to human action. Texas was induced to annexation by the immense advantages to arise from union with this country, but surely there was no Coercion in the case. States, as well as individuals, sometimes require inducements i to the performance of duty, to the administration of justice, to the discharge of obligat ions imposed upon them by lheir own action. But, it is said, the Southern States should ■ not have ratified the amendments until I after they had been fully restored. In that I ease, the inducement to ratify would have j been taken away, and they would not have I done so, especially if they had heeded the advice of the Northern Democracy. When it is necessary for a man to give security for his good behavior, he is re- ; qnired to execute the bond before he is ' discharged from custody; he would hardly j do it afterward, and it was not reasonable I-to suppose the Southern States would offer I guarantees after they had been fully re's stored to political power. The act of Congress, passed in 1818, i contains the following provisions .- “Sec. 4. Abd if inactcd. That when- ! ever official notice shall have been received at the Vepartwatit of State that any amendment which heretofore has been, or hereafter may be, proposed to the Constitution of the United States has been : adopted according to the provisions of the Constitution, it shall be the duty of the said Secretary of State forthwith to cause the said amendment ‘ to be published in the said newspapers authorized to promulgate the laws, with his certificate, specifying the States by which the same may have been adopted, and that the same has become valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the Constitu- , lion of the United Slates.”

This constitutes the Secretary of State a judicial officer to determine and decide upon the official evidence of the ratification of an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and if he finds it has been legally and properly ratified, to make proclamation thereof in the manner prescribed. From his decision there is no appeal, and his adjudication is final. That power had to be lodged somewhere, and it has been vested in the Secretary of State. The joint resolution of the Legislature of Indiana, ratifying the Fifteenth Amendment. signed* by the presiding officers of the two houses, duly certified under the seal of the Slate., was filed with the Secretary. The evidence was incontrovertible; there was nothing to impeach it placed before him. and there could be nothing. An appropriation bill patjsed by the Legislature oi Irtdiana on tltej same day, with the same quorum, and tfy/the same vqjes, was afterward contested before the Supreme Court of the State, and held to be valid, i vg, court deciding the evidence of the i nothiiY of ,he act t 0 to P er ftot, and that ' forwantTP d I,e received to impeach it laxity. quorum or by other irregu- ! As before state, .. , . . . , Secretary of State w^ e m ll S cl ® ,on , ? f I law, ana no appeal can be■ f by I a Democratic convention f r ' ?m rt t 0 . dental majority of a -subsequent - “f 1 ’ ! . Th , e question as to whether stitutional amendment has been ratifia.’ |is essential y political, and must be deter- > mined by the political department of the ■ S>T e .r! lnieil c , 6 those ot her questions, I whether a State has a republican form of government, or whether a State has been properly admitted into the Union, as -jn I Ore case of West V irginia, it must be dei termined by Congress or by some officer I appointed by a law of Congress for that purpose, and when so determined, must be acquiesced in fy the courts and the government, for otherwise nothing can ever be settled. 7

But suppose that the Secretary of State had been notified, as he was not, that objections were madejjo the sufficienc/of the quorum in the Legislature of Indiana when the resolution ratifying the Fifteenth Amendment was passed' and had undertaken to do what the Supreme Court of Indiana said no court had a right to do—go behind the enrolled bill, and behind the signatures of the presiding otilcers, and inquire into the sufficiency of the quorum—he Would have found the following alate of facte; That the law of the State

provldei for the election of one hundred ipi-mlxTB to the nouse, mid fifty members ' -so tiie Senate, and that the Constution of the State provides that " two thirds'of ; eaoh IIotiM! shall constitute n quorum to i do business. ' The Democratic leaders I assumed that it required two thirds <>i all 'the niembcrA authorized.by law -to. by elected to each house to constitute si quorum. That was sixty-seven in the Rouse and thirty-four in the S nale; and in order to defr-at the ratification <-f the j Fifteenth Amendment by breaking the ( -quorum forty meiqlx-rs of the Home and i M-vent en in inters Ot the S n ite re-i U'-d their S'-atg, thus reducing the nu tnlicrship in each body to less than two thirds of Hie , members authorized by law to be elected, (tn the other hat.il, the'Republicans as Rtttncd ’ tl’iat ciu h house consisted <>t its i autual membership ; that when a nieml»er died or resigned lie was no longer to be counted, iinjlahat two thirds of that mem ' berslup cdwlituted a quorum. The Constitution of the United SJatcs provides that — “A majority of eath house shall consti tute a quorum to do business/’ Two thirds of each house is required to constitute a quorum in the State Legislature, but a majority iu each house will | constitute a quorum in Congress, and the first question under each constitution is, What is the " home,” or how many members does it tike to constitute the “Il msc?” And when that is ascertain' d,‘ then two thirds of that nutnlier will constitute the quorum in the Legislature, and I a majority in Congress. It has been solemnly decided that each, house of Congress consists of its wetual member.-hip, and not of the whole n im- , her of members authorized by law to be elected ; that when a senator or representative dies or resigns, he is no longer to'be j counted in determining the quoium, and . that the. quorum bocsists of a majority ot i the remaining members, and in this wav varies from day to day, as vaeaneit-s occur ; by death or resignation, or are filled by I election or appointment. i This question was raised in Congress I after the signation of the. senatijrs and ; rcpresentiitives from the Soichern States/ nt the beginning of the rebellion, and was decided in accordance with common sense j and tiie necessity of preserving the govta, ! ernment. The*resolution ratifying the Fifteenth Amendment, in tiie Indisna Legislature, received fifty-six votes in the House, and j twenty-eight' iu the Senate, the same | being a clear majority of all the members authorized by law to be elected by either hou-e. So much of the joint resolution I am considering as purports to rc-cind the act of the Legislature of Indiana* ratifying the Fifteenth Amendment is .a harmless nullity, and need not be noticed but for the wh iclvit-is animated. The better opinion is, that after the Legislature of a State has ratified an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, even before it has been ratified by enough other States to secure its adoption, the act cannot be recinded on the ground that the power of a Legislature, as conferred by the ConstituUtion of the United States, having been once exercised on the particular amendment, has been exhausted. But that tbp Legislature can rescind its act of ratification after the amendment has been ratified by three-fourths of all the States and proclaimed according to-lasst, was never, asserted before, except by those who maintained the right of secession. South Carolina held, in 1860, that she could throw off her constitutional-obliga-tions and secede from the Union by simply repealing the ordinance by which she ratified the Consitution in 178’8; and such seems to have been the opinion of those who. voted for this joint resolution. Stripped of all pretenses and beclouding “whereases,” it asserts the naked and abhorrent doctrine of the right of secession.

It is important that the country should understand the issue tendered by the Democratic party: that it proposes to accept nothing that has been done in the way of reconstruction;'that it repudiates all the terms and guarantees required of ; Uie rebel States as the condition of their restoration. Not only has it declared, through its conventions,{State and National, that the reconstruction acts of 1867 were, unconstitutional and void, but it now asserts that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments are nullities, and will be by them disregarded when they come into powdr. ■< Men of all parties, who seek repose and the final settlement of the great questions growing but of the rebellion, are notified that the programme of the Democratic party is revolution and retrogression. The nullification of the Fifteenth Amendment means the robbery from the colored people of their right to vote. The nullification of the Fourteenth Amendment means the reduction of the colored people of the Southern States to the coudilion of slaves to the law; it means to leave the door open to the assumption of the rebel debt, paying the rebels for their slaves and for the repudiation of the national debt. All these things are provided against in that amendment, and there can be no other reason for its nullification. Why should any one desire to set it aside unless it be to accomplish the things which it forbids ? »

In stating the positson of the Democratic party, I rely upon the expression of opinion in the Indiana resolutions, and upon the vote of the Democratic members in the otherend of this Capitol, at the last session, against a resolution declaring the validity of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth ainendments. On the 11th of July, 1870, the other house, by a vote of 138 yeas to 32 nays, every Democratic member present voting nay, adopted the following resolution, offered by Mr. Ferriss, of New York: That the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Articles of Amendment to the Constitution of tho United States, having been duly ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourthe of the several States, are valid to all intents and purposes as part of the | Coustituion of the United States, anti, as such, ■ binding and obligatory upon the Executive, the I Congress. the Judiciary, the several States and Territories, and all citizens of the United States,” I rely upon these further reasons : That the adoption of the amendments was strongly opposed by the Democratic party in Congress and out of it; that the Democratic party everywhere denied the power of Congress to require the late rebel States to raify the amendments as a condition to their restoration; that no Demoj cratic Convention, Legislature, or leading i statesman, so far as I know, has accepted I or admitted the validity of the amendment, i And I may refer to the additional facts that i the State of Kentucky to-day nullifies an ' important provision of the Fourteenth I fr.nendment, and also of the 11 Civil Rights [ by refusing to colored people the . n .Sto to'wstify in her courts in any case, | civil or cnnaoal, to which a white person lis a party’. A -white man may enter a I cohered congregation and shoot the minis- ; ter in the pulpit, and if there are no white | witness he can be prosecuted/ No wonder that the press f, laming with crimes committed upon the color of that State. Wple And the Supreme Court of California, in ■ a recent decision, refusing to the Chinese • the right to testify in cases to which white i persons are parties,'-while not directly denying the authority of the Fourteenth Amendment, asserts the existence of State ■ rights which would subvert it utterly. ' And the G weruor of that State, in a message to the Legislature, declared that the Fifteenth Amendment wks not within the ‘ scope of the power of amendment contained in the Constitution of the United States. Mr. Casseily—Will the Senator allow 1 me— ' ' «:

Mr. Morton—l shall be through in a moment, and then I will answer any questions. Mr. Casnetly—l rise merely to a torrec tionas a question of fact. , * Mr. Morton—Very well. Mr. Casserly—This Senator from Indiana probably is not aware that thatmessage of I lie Governor of California, was' delivered whil-lhe ratification of the amendment was still pending. Mr Morton—l am aware that that-mes-sage wits on-sending the amendment into tie Legislature; but that Message denied the pow< r of Congress to propose an amendment of that Rind, and denied the pbssibiHty of its becoming a part of the Constitution of th United States, though ratified bv ever so many States. 'And the Legislature of Oregon, at its late session, formally declared the same amendment to be a nullity, and not binding upon the |K“ople. of that State. The issue thiiA presented is of the gravest possible character, and involves’the peace and perhaps the very existence of the Union. Amendments so vital to the safety of the nation, and to the liberty and happiness of nearly five millions of people, adopted unifer circumstances so solemn-ai dso strange in the world’s history. cannot be nullified but by a struggle which «ill shake our government to its fnmdations. t - Wh n we look at the reign of violence in the South, the bitter and bloody persecution of men for opinion's sake, and at the omnidus cloud of nullification which ni.tk s the political horizon black, who will dare to say that the mission of the Republican party has been performed ?”