DEAR H—: — I want to preach you a short doctrinal sermon. Text, “The Equalization of Representatives.” — Commercial, January 31. I voted for Schenck's form, but the debates. satisfied me that the committee's plan would do as well, perhaps better. It sheds water in all directions. No objection sticks. You quote Shellabarger's six points against it. The Constitution as practically construed is equally liable to the objection indicated by numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6. Read them, and you'll see it. Number 5 is that the provision may be evaded. Let that go for what it is worth. By Schenck's amendment the foreign-born, who are not naturalized, are lost to the North and West worth ten to fifteen members. Missouri, Maryland, and other States lose by the disfranchisement of Rebels, etc., etc., and upon the whole you will, I think, be satisfied with the amendment adopted. It gives Ohio one more and Massachusetts one less than Schenck's amendment would do. The figures prove it.
But all this is, of course, not what worried me into worrying you. You say: “We would not make the adoption of this amendment a condition precedent to the admission of the Southern Representatives.” I move a reconsideration of that opinion. The amendment never can be got except as a condition. The South will never give up its power if admitted with it. I would be disposed, I think, to let in the loyal Tennesseeans when their State adopts it. The Rebel States will always be represented (during our day, at least) by repudiators—by men willing to assume every sort of claim payable South. Twenty-two Senators added to the twelve or fifteen now there, and the political power of four millions and a quarter of negroes in the House and the Electoral College, is a serious thing. It deserves reconsideration that idea of yours.
Do you want any books, apple seeds, or oats? I am in that trade now.
Cincinnati, Ohio.
No comments:
Post a Comment