SUPPLEMENTARY
TO
THE BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
VOLUME ELEVENTH.
Proposed Amendments to the Constitution of the United
States
----The Fifteenth Article---- Debate in Continua
tion.
IN SENATE.
TUESDAY, April 13, 1869.AFTERNOON SESSION.
[IN CONTINUATION-p. 286.]
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR called to order at two o'clock p. m., and stated the order to be the resolution, submitted by Mr. Cravens this morning, the consideration of which was pending at the time of taking the recess for dinner.
The resolutions are as follows:
A JOINT RESOLUTION Accepting and Ratifying a certain Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
WHEREAS, Congress has, by a two-thirds vote, proposed to the Legislatures of the several States in Amendment to the Constitution of the United Sates, which, when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the States, shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as a Part of this Constitution, namely;
"ARTICLE XV.
"SECTION 1. The right of the Citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, nor by any State, on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.
"SEC. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
Wherefore,
Be it Resolved by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana, That said Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby Accepted and Ratified on the part of the State of Indiana:
Resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring, That the consideration of the joint resolution accepting, and ratifying, on the part of Indiana, the proposed Fifteenth Amendment to the institution of the United States, be postponed and made the special order for action at two o'clock, P. M. on Wednesday the eleventh day of May next ensuing, in joint Assembly of the two Houses to be held in the Hall of the House of Representatives on said day and at said hour.
The quention being on Mr. Johnston of Montgomery's amendment as follows:
Strike out all that refers to a concurrence of the two Houses, and strike out that part which refers to a joint convention of the two Houses.
Mr. STEIN. Mr. President: I announce myself as one determined to support the resolutions of the Senator from Jefferson [Mr. Cravens.] Since they have been sprung in this chamber, they have been vehemently assailed by the opposition as involving a breach of faith on the part of the Republican members of the Legislature. It has been charged that our Democratic brethren have been cajoled into a reappearance among us, by pledges which are now sought to be broken. This is a grave charge; involving a question of honor. I presume, I for one, may speak upon it without embarrssment. I assume that it will not be urged against me, that I am committed to any pledge, direct or indirect; or that any act of mine has tended to deceive my democratic colleagues with regard to my ultimate purpose.
Now, sir, with my understanding of the case I cannot but regard all this clamor concerning a breach of faith as unfounded and a perversion of the facts. Hence I am unwilling that the charge should go abroad uncontradicted. Already it is exultantly paraded in Democratic prints that we of the Republican party have bowed the knee to the arrogant dictation which has been made for the last six days, that our political adversaries held us bravely at bay, until our own fears led us to succumb and yield; after which they graciously came page: 298[View Page 298] back among us. This is a version both pleasing to the Democratic ear and flattering to Democratic pride. But unfortunately it lacks the foundation of truth.
When this session began, our colleagues of the opposition were in this city in close cabal and conspiracy, determined to deny their presence to the legislature until we of the Republican party, should secure them against the intrusion of the Fifteenth amendment, at any time during the session by firm and unequivocal pledges. We were given to understand in a variety of ways that this was a condition absolute; without which we should, under no circumstances, enjoy their companionship aud aid in the work of legislation. We were served with notice as early as our first preliminary caucus - hold last Wednesday evening; the day before the meeting of the present General Assemply. Did we quail? did we yield then? What was our action on the demand? We laid it on the table, coupled with a resolution which, in the most authoritative manner apprised the Democratic members that we were here to perform our Constitutional duties and would in no wise trammel ourselves with pledges precedent as an inducement to their reappearance. Here was our action and our utterance as a party. Has the resolution then passed been since retracted? If so, when? Do we not know that the same proposition which came to us on Wednesday evening was again sent to our caucus the next day - sent certified as the demand of the Democracy as a party? - and that it encountered the rebuff of a decisive silence. Not a word of response was deigned on the occasion. What next? An hour later, and while our caucus was still in session, a second proposition was sent to us. It proved a huge descent from the first lofty stand-point. It was now requested that we should give our Democratic friends at least two days notice before acting upon the obnoxious amendment! But this proposal fared no better than the first. Its treatment was a like silence. And here ended our action and intercourse upon the subject, as a party. Here, as a party, ends our record; and you search it in vain for the trace of those assurances and pledges concerning which so much is said in and out of print; in and out of this chamber.
But we are given to understand that individual pledges from our side are out on this subject. Concerning these it is enough to say that they cannot be urged against us as a party. They may bind those implicated, but can reach no farther. They constitute a matter of account to be settled between our Democratic brethren and the individual members of our party committed to the pledges. But the presumptions are against the existence of any compact at the time our brethren returned to these halls and their duty. Otherwise why should our adversaries manifest such trepidation over the resolutions now pending? If private pledges were out, they must have been sufficiently numerous to control the situation - else it would have been folly for Democracy to come back upon the strength of the same. If adequate in number, why the unmistakeable alarm shown at present? Senators knew that gentlemen stand by their word of honor, and if such honorable pledges are out it is known to all parties concerned in them. Surely no one can have so insulting an opinion of any member of the General Assembly as to suppose that the word of honor which he pledges to an adversary will be violated by him either in letter or spirit.
The presumptive evidence is fortified by the facts. I admit that after the adjournment of our caucus last Thursday certain members of our party, feeling rather sensitive in this crisis and weighing the comparative importance of general State Legislation, with the ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment, thought it best to subordinate the latter to the former, and accordingly committed themselves by verbal promised to a portion of a Democratic members that State Legislation should be preferred, and that at least one days notice should precede the consideration of the amendment. A sufficient number of these promises were secured to command the result both in this and the other house. I am advised that the verbal character of the agreement excited such distrust that a leader of the Democratic wing found it necessary to apprise those of our side who were in the arrangement that the must be in writing and signed! after which it should prove all sufficient. This was acceeded to and that which was verbal became written. Will it be denied that all which beforehand lay in parol was now merged and embodied in into the writing? The paper, so signed, was put the possession of the Democratic caucus and I am given to understand that all Friday and most of Saturday's forenoon was spent by them in discussing the reliability for truth and trustworthiness of the gentlemen whose names we subscribed to the document! What conclusion was arrived at I don't know, but before twelve o'clock of Saturday, a Democratic member of the House, called upon the gentleman whose name appeared first upon the written proposition and gave him to understand, as I am informed, that unless the members who had signed the paper would allow it to be published in the public prints it would not be considered by the Democratic representation. Such a demand indicated a purpose to parade the document as a concession tendered by our party. It could mean nothing else. The gentleman addressed, properly regarding it in this light, and feeling now satis page: 299[View Page 299] the insincerity of those who had been asking reasonable pledges as a condition preliminary to their re-appearance here, promptly asked a return of the paper, and it was handed back then and there; and, I am told, due notice was then given that the return of the paper should be considered an end of all negotiations between its signers and the Democratic wing of the Legislature. This occurred last Saturday.
Now, sir, the Democratic members saw fit to reappear and qualify yesterday both in the House and Senate. They came into the chamber at a timely moment. We were then debating the proposition of declaring their seats vacant and would have reached a vote, (which could not have been other than an affirmative vote,) in the course of a few minutes. And I now assert, what it was my object to say when I took the floor, that they came back voluntarily and at their own risk and at a time when the members of our party was untrammeled by any promises. Let the world know this, and no more be said of "breach of faith."In further exposition of this matter I ask that the Secretary read the editorial which appeared in the Indianapolis Sentinel (Democratic,) of this morning, headed "The Legislature - the organization of both brances," which I now send up.
The Secretary read as follows:
THE LEGISLATURE- THE ORGANIZATION OF BOTH BENCHES.-Both branches of the General Assembly were organized yesterday afternoon and proceeded with business. Upon the written pledge of eighteen Senators and Representatives that the ratification of the proposed Constitutional Amendment should not be attempted until ample notice was given of the intention, the Democratic members of the Legislature, elected at the recent special election, presented their credentials yesterday afternoon, and were qualified. It will be noticed by the House proceedings that the arrangement was carried out in good faith in that body by the adoption of a resolution, the reconsideration of which was laid upon the table, an action which makes it binding, not to enter upon the consideration of the ratification of the proposed Constitutional Amendment before the 11th day of May. This action insures the adoption of all necessary legislation. We sincerely hope a better feeling will prevail, which will end in submitting the controversy to the verdict et the people, and thus recognize the foundation principle of a free government that the people are the true source of power, and that the will of the majority should govern.
Mr. STEIN. Thus it will be seen that the Democratic organ of this city bases the reappearance of the Democratic members here upon the strength and faith of that written paper thus signed. The version thus given is running abroad and already I find it in the Democratic paper published in my own city, (Lafayette.) Nothing is said of the withdrawal of we proposal, nor of the circumstances under which the proposal was originally delivered to the Democratic members. These circumstances have not yet been mentioned, but they deserve to be declared ; as we thereby have an explanation why the subsequent demand to have the paper published bore such an offensive character. When the written pledge was placed into the hands of the Democrats they were distinctly apprised that it was a private pledge, with which the Republicans as a party had no connection. As such, and also because some of those who had lent their names to it apprehended that they had thereby somewhat compromised themselves, they required that the document should be kept private and not thrust into print. But they expressed their willingness that it should be held to the end of the session as a guarantee of their fidelity to the engagements contained in it. Should these be violated the paper was to be published as a justification of the one side and a proof of the treachery of the other. These was the stipulations upon which the paper was originally delivered.
But, as I said before, this paper was returned and in the possession of one of its signers on Saturday before noon. Pie had it and I saw it with my own eyes before twelve o'clock of that day. I make bold to say it has not from that moment been back in Democratic hands. Its return was construed as a termination of the truce or armistice between the contracting parties; there could be no other construction about it.
Now permit me to read some sentences contained in the Indianapolis Journal (Republican) of this morning. I will read myself until I come to the main letter. I read from an editorial headed: "What the Democratic caucus did."
WHAT THE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS DID.-We gave a sketch yesterday of the negotiations between the caucus of Democrats and the Republicans as to the' terms upon which the former would consent to do their duty. We propose to complete it to-day. The Democrats agreed that, if they could have the assurances of enough Republicans to keep the Constitutional Amendment out of the way of other business, that it should be kept out of the way, and due notice given them when it should be taken up, they would take their seats, permit the Legislature to be organized, and help do the work they had been elected at a cost of $50,000 to do. The Republicans accepted the proposition, though they were under no obligation of duty or courtesy to do more than they had done since Thursday; that is, hold themselves in their places ready for work at any moment when the recusant Democrats should come in and give them a quorum. They made an agreement in writing that they would not allow the Constitutional Amendment to be taken up till necessary legislation had been completed, and that they would give up a day's notice of their purpose to take it up. Thirteen Representatives and five Senators signed it. They were enough, with the Democrats to control all action upon the amendment. This was exactly what was asked. The Democratic caucus on Saturday, by a vote of twenty-five to twenty-three, refused to abide by the agreement. They asked the Republican members to let them publish it, " as an explanation to their constituents" of their consent to do their duty. The Republicans refused to do that, as the whole transaction was an individual and private affair, pledges of individual Republicans to individual Democrats. They said to the Committee of the caucus, " if you want to explain to your con page: 300[View Page 300]stituents your action in doing what you were elected to do, you have only to point them to the Constitution which makes it your duty to organize, and transact the State's business. If that is not explanation enough, it is not our affair to furnish it." When the Democrats rejected this pledge, the Republicans at once withdrew it, and told the caucus that they had now no pledges or promises to make, but that they were and would be always in their places ready for work. The Democrats, in spite of this, then attempted to get a second pledge. Though they had broken their agreement, they had the coolness to ask another, as if anybody could trust them to abide by it any more honorably than they did by the first one, They asked that the Republicans should make the same pledge as before, but should give it to the caucus instead of to individual members. To this proposition, which was made on Saturday, the Republicans, by Hon. Milton S. Osborn, replied as follows:
The Republicans replied as follows. And now I ask the Secretary to read the letter. The Seretary read:
INDIANAPOLIS, IND., April 12, 1869. GENTLEMEN:
Your communication of the l0th. inst., addressed to myself and some other members of the General Assembly, was placed in my hands about six o'clock Saturday afternoon. I endeavored at once to see the gentlemen named, to submit to them your proposition. I have not been able to see all of them up to this time. Your communication has been considered by such as I have seen, and they say that they signed the agreement referred to, in consideration of assurances given to them personally by several Democratic members elect that such an agreement in writing would remove the obstacle which seemed to prevent an organization of the Legislature, and from an impression made by the Democratic caucus in their third proposition. While they regarded the requirement that their often repeated promise to take no advantage of the minority to pass the fifteenth amendment should be put in " black and white," as not entirely respectful, and certainly unusual, they consented to do so, in order to secure the much needed legislation for the State. We are notified by the resolution of a Democratic caucus, a copy of which you have kindly placed in my hands, that the proposition we made to such Democratic members elect as had expressed their intention to qualify if such assurance could be given them, had been rejected, but that if said proposition were put in a different shape it might be acted upon.
Such of the Senators and Representatives as I have submitted your communication to say that they have already given all the assurance as to what their course will be that could reasonably be required, and that they have been disregarded in every form made; and while they desire and seek nothing but a fair and undisguised course in any act of Legislation, they can see no good that will result from any additional promises to gentlemen who have so uniformity rejected promises which they had given strong assurances would be accepted, and would induce gentlemen who possessed the power, to permit an organization. I therefore respectfully assure you that we have no additional promises to make, but will be ready at two o'clock this day, if a quorum shall assemble, to proceed with the much needed Legislation.
Very respectfully,
MILTON A. OSBORN
Hon. J. M. HANNA,
Hon. C. R. CORY,
Hon. JAMES M. SLEETH.
Now, sir, I call upon the Senator from Sullivan [Mr. Hanna] to say whether that letter was received by him?
Mr. HANNA. That letter was received by me yesterday.
Mr. STEIN. Then a fair presumption is that it was laid before the Democratic members of the Senate and House.
Mr. HANNA (in his seat.) Do you want a statement to that effect?
Mr. STEIN. No sir. I take it for granted -
Mr. HANNA (in his seat.) There is no presumption about it.
Mr. STEIN. The paper further proceeds:
The Republicans had no more pledges to make to men who, as they say, "had so uniformly rejected" the pledges they had asked. The Democrats could get nothing. After the transmission to them of Mr. Osborn's letter, not one word of promises, pledges or negotiations in any shape took place. They took their seats and allowed the Legislature to be organized without a breath of assurance, where they had been so resolute to have all sorts of pledges four days before. They fell heavily and not at all gracefully. They had followed Mr. T.A. Hendricks so far that they could not go ahead without breaking their necks, not get back without a ludicrous fall.
These are the remarks of the editor, it is true, but they embody the understanding which prevails without exception among the members of our party. If, since the withdrawal of the original written proposition any new promises, verbal or written, have been made, they are such I know not of-they have escaped the publicity of even rumor. Had any been extant it is not likely that the Sentinel in its article of this morning, already read to the Senate, would have omitted allusion to it. I therefore conclude there were no other promises, and feel warranted to assert, from what has been said that the Democrats came back, at their risk and without pledges outstanding from any member of our side.
But let me return for a moment and analyze the character of the written paper, returned last Saturday, and for argument sake consider it as still a pending engagement. Can it be so construed as to carry its signers against the resolutions of the Senator from Jefferson, [Mr. Cravens,] now under discussion? These resolutions do not contemplate an abrupt consideration of the Fifteenth Amendment. They postpone the matter of ratification to a remote day, In the interim all necessary State Legislation can be accomplished. There is nothing prevent the recourse of resignation, so familiar to our Democratic brethren. Then why should the pledge be referred to as an argument against these resolutions? I happen to hold the original paper now. Let me read it omitting the names of the signers:
We the undersigned, members of the House of Representatives, agree that we will vote for no proposition to take up the Constitutional Fifteenth Amendment, before the regular and necessary business, and that when a resolution is offered we will vote that it go upon the table at least one day before it is considered.
Mr. HANNA (in his seat.) That is not all the paper.
page: 301[View Page 301]Mr. STEIN. That is all of the contract.
Mr. HANNA. No sir.
Mr. STEIN. (Turning over the paper.) Well sir I find the following additional passage, which certainly does not affect the contracting Part:
We, the undersigned Senators, concur in the above.
This is signed by several Senators.
Mr. HANNA. No: there is something else.
Mr. STEIN. (Handing the paper to a page) I will pass the paper to the Senator. He shall satisfy himself by ocular inspection that I have omitted nothing but the signatures.
Now sir, will Senators of the opposition say that this pledge is a signification from those signing it that the Democrats shall be at liberty to take all measures to defeat completely the ratification of the Fifteenth Amemdment, and that in all such measures the signers will aid them? That would be a most violent and unnatural construction of the paper. Such is not the purport of the paper, and such never have been the purpose of any of the signers. Where is the Republican of this Legislature who has ever intended to take a step looking to the utter prevention of the ratification? Many of us, myself among the rest, have been opposed to even so much as a temporary postponement of the great event. Many of us consider that this Fifteenth Amendment appeals to us as patriots of the whole nation and that before it the local legislation may well stand suspended for a day. I look upon it as embodying the vital principle upon which our government must be reconstructed, or our country lapse back at length into the trouble from which she has just emerged. Without this measure, in my judgment, the country cannot attain the crowning acme of its development. The principle of universal protection must accompany the idea of citizenship; else all is insecure. Now we have declared citizenship to the negro and will we deny him that absolute protection which can only be guaranteed by the ballot? It is by the ballot alone that the rights of the citizen obtain their complete sovereignty - unless thus protected it is in vain to talk about rights. A disfranchised people are always at the mercy of the ballot-holders of the land. But by that quiet and mighty weapon, the ballot, they can always protect themselves.
Mr. BIRD. Will the Senator allow me? I ask the Senator if he believes that he could go before the people of his district and be elected upon the issue of the Constitutional Amendment?
Mr. STEIN. I would have a very unworthy opinion of my constituents if I thought otherwise. Yes sir, upon this very issue, I stand prepared to go before the people of Tippecanoe eounty, convinced that I would be abundantly sustained by the intelligent people whom I have the honor to represent here.I grant that, as a present question throughout the State at large, we might have to fight you at a disadvantage. The sad preponderance of unreasoning prejudice and life-long prepossessions stand frequently in the path of the most salutary reforms. But let us once ratify this amendment, and, as an accomblished fact, the people will acquiesce in it as readily and as cheerfully as they did a few years since in the memorable Emancipation Proclamation of Lincoln. This is one of the great reformatory movements of the age; and it wonld be a singular exception to its kind, did it not encounter fierce opposition in the outstart. It was in contention with relentless adversaries that Christ preached the new gospel. Reforms are not born in the midst of plaudits arid acclamation. Through persecution and buffetings they win their way to their inevitable ultimate dominion. But, once established, the people look back with relief, and glorify the courageous souls who through cloud and sunshine carried the banner and accomplished the victory.
Sir, I admit that, upon this question of ratification, we and the Democratic party stand upon terms of bitter and undying hostility. We ask no quarter, and we give no quarter. We do not expect an offer of quarter; and I trust that no Republication Senator or Representative, after what has happened, will be found to bend the hinges of his knee to a part notoriously seeking here, by faction and rebellion, to frustrate and defeat this great measure.
We look to see this amendment pass sooner or later. It will be the law of the land. It may become such before the ratification of this State will be required. And oh! may the day when that ratification shall be given here be near at hand-and near at hand the hour when the final ratification shall be proclaimed all over the land-when the protection of the civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution of our common country shall be guaranteed by that higher power-the highest power under God Almighty-the power of the ballot.
