EQUAL SUFFRAGE AT ONCE BY ACT OF CONGRESS RATHER THAN CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

LETTER TO THE NEW YORK INDEPENDENT, APRIL 20, 1867.

SENATE CHAMBER, April 20, 1867.

DEAR SIR,-You wish to have the North

MY Donstructed," so at least that it shall cease to

deny the elective franchise on account of color. But you postpone the day by insisting on the preliminary of a Constitutional Amendment. I know your vows to the good cause; but I ask you to make haste. We cannot wait.

Of course, we can always wait for the needful processes; but there are present reasons why we should allow no time to be lost. This question must be settled forthwith: in other words, it must be settled before the Presidential election, now at hand. Our colored fellow-citizens at the South are already electors. They will vote at the Presidential election. But why should they vote at the South, and not at the North? The rule of justice is the same for both. Their votes are needed at the North as well as the South. There are Northern States where their votes can make the good cause safe beyond question. There are other States where their votes will be like the last preponderant weight in the nicely balanced scales. Let our colored

fellow-citizens vote in Maryland, and that State, now so severely tried, will be fixed for Human Rights forever. Let them vote in Pennsylvania, and you will give more than twenty thousand votes to the Republican cause. Let them vote in New York, and the scales, which hang so doubtful, will incline to the Republican side. It will be the same in Connecticut. I mention these by way of example. But everywhere the old Proslavery party will kick the beam. Let all this be done, I say, before the next Presidential election.

Among the proposed ways is a new Constitutional Amendment. But this is too dilatory. It cannot become operative till after the Presidential election. Besides, it is needless. Instead of amending the Constitution, read it.

Another way is by moving each State, and obtaining through local legislation what is essentially a right of citizenship. But this again is too dilatory, while it turns each State into a political maelström, and submits a question of National interest to the chances of local controversy and the timidity of local politicians. This will not do. Emancipation was a National act, proceeding from the National Government, and applicable to all the States. Enfranchisement, which is the corollary and complement of Emancipation, must be a National act also, proceeding from the National Government, and applicable to all the States. If left to the States individually, the result, besides being tardy, will be uncertain and fragmentary.

There is another way, at once prompt, energetic, and comprehensive. It is by Act of Congress, adopted by a majority of two thirds, in spite of Presidential veto.

VOL. XV. — - 12

The time has passed when this power can be questioned. Congress has already exercised it in the Rebel States. I do not forget its hesitations. Only a year ago, when I insisted that it must do so, and introduced a bill to this effect, I was answered that a Constitutional Amendment was needed, and I was voted down. A change came, and in a happy moment Congress exercised the power. What patriot questions it now? But the power is unquestionable in the other States also. It concerns the rights of citizenship, and this subject is as essentially national as the army or the

navy.

Even without either of the recent Constitutional Amendments, I am at a loss to understand how a denial of the elective franchise simply on account of color can be otherwise than unconstitutional. I cannot see how, under a National Constitution which does not contain the word "white" or "black," there can be any exclusion on account of color. There is no such exclusion in the Constitution. Out of what text is this oligarchical pretension derived? But, putting aside this question, which will be clearer to the jurists of the next generation than to us, I vouch the authoritative words of the National Constitution, making it our duty to guaranty a republican form of government in the States. Now the greatest victory of the war, to which all other victories, whether in Congress or on the bloody field, were only tributary, was the definition of a republican government according to the principles of the Declaration of Independence. A government which denies the elective franchise on account of color, or, in other words, sets up any "qualifications' of voters in their nature insurmountable, cannot be re

publican; for the first principle in a republican government is Equality of Rights, according to the principles of the Declaration of Independence. And this definition, I insist, is the crowning glory of the war which beat down Rebellion under its feet. It only remains for Congress to enforce it by appropriate legislation. There are two recent Constitutional Amendments, each of which furnishes ample and cumulative power.

There is, first, the Amendment abolishing Slavery, with its clause conferring on Congress the power to enforce it by appropriate legislation, in pursuance of which Congress has already passed the Civil Rights Act, which is applicable to the North as well as the South. Clearly, and most obviously beyond all question, if it can pass a Civil Rights Act, it can also pass a Political Rights Act; for each is appropriate to enforce the abolition of Slavery, and to complete this work. Without it the work is only half done.

There is yet another Amendment, recently adopted by three fourths of the loyal States, which is itself an abundant source of power. After declaring that all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are "citizens," this Amendment. proceeds to provide that "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"; and Congress is empowered to enforce this provision by appropriate legislation. Nothing can be plainer than this.

Here, then, are three different sources of power in the Constitution itself, each sufficient, the three together three times sufficient, each exuberant and overflowing, the three together three times exuberant and overflowing. How, in the face of these provisions, any

-

person can doubt the power of Congress I cannot understand. But, alas! there are doubters always.

I have already sent you a copy of my bill to settle this question by what I call "the short cut." Give us your vote. Of course, you will. Believe me, my dear

Sir,

Very faithfully yours,

THEODORE TILTON, Esq.

CHARLES SUMNER.

This was followed by an editorial article sustaining and vindicating Mr. Sumner's bill. It began:

"Yes. Mr. Sumner has our vote. He has always had it; he is always likely to have it. How did Roger Sherman vote?' asked our forefathers. They believed it was safe to vote with Roger Sherman. It is just as safe to vote with Charles Sumner."

:

After explanation and argument, the article proceeds :

"Not only is Mr. Sumner right as to the power of Congress in the present case, but long ago he was right as to the power of Congress to govern the unconstitutional States as conquered provinces. He then stood almost alone in the Senate in an opinion which he has since seen adopted by his brother Senators. We trust his compeers will agree to his present bill. We happen to know that Thaddeus Stevens-who, even when sick, is more well than most men-is preparing, on his sick-bed, an argument in support of Mr. Sumner's plan. We happen to know, also, that Chief Justice Chase agrees with Mr. Sumner's view."