Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1826-03-24

ine iouo"inS resolutions proposed by Mr. McDuf-
ne. oeng under consideration, in Committee of the
Whole, viz:
eesolred That fr the purpose elccting the presi-
dent and Vice President of the United States Const,-
ton ought to be amended in such preven,
e election OF the Aforesaid officers from devoving Con-
gress.
Resored, Tia, system of voting by districts
ought 10 De established in all the States the number
districts in each State equal the number OF Senators
Representatives TO which each State may be entitled
Congress, and each District having vote
81 Reso}red, That select committee be appointed with
instructions prepare and report joint resolutions embra
Uiig the aforesaid. objects"
MIR. EVERETT, of Massachusetts addressed thc
Committee as follows:
Mr. CHAIRMAN; rise to address the Committee
in state of lndispoSon under which, ought in or,,-
dence TO be at home, rather than on this floor am
opposed to the resolutions of the gentleman from South
Carolina, (Blr McDufIie.l 1t is with me matter Of
serious question: whether the alterations in tho Consti-
tuition for which they provide, not, in their spirit
and tendency, unconstitutional am not aware that
this topic has been discussed that the limit TO which
the power OF amending goes, has been duly tied by
the People of America Meantime, am strongly dis
posed 70 think that the parliamentary license of
Inent, by which we make what changes we will in
the propositions that before us has no application
10 the Constitution Of the United States. I'm the ordi
nary business of leg satoD, and for the safe of facil
tating our proceedings, il is permitted, under Tie name
OF amendment totally 10 change the nature of propo-
son; TO convert it from positive TO negative, and
the reverse and this with good reason for the entire
proposition, and the whole subject-mater of it, being
venience, IN point of oider whether we change one
proposition by way OF amendment, or discard it. and
bring in another. But, relation to the Copstitu
ton Of the United States very different and no such
latitude OF amendment be INDUCED with rcspect
10 that instrument.
The justice of this distinction nay think be illus
traed by a SIMPLE superstition, that should 20 to vary
the relation i'll which stand, even 10 ordinary mat
tiers of legislation. In Representative govern
inens, thai ofFrahce, for instance all bills are intro
duced by the officers of the crown, who are bound by
their duty and oath of Office support them if required
suppose something like this existed in governments
md that you, sir as Chairman of the Committee of
Ways and Means. under an obligation of this
kind, TO support The leading appropriation bills of the
year Should you esteem il 10 be consistent with that
obligation 10 introduce, under the OF amendments
essential changes in the provisions of these bills? Would
not such step on your part be direct breach of
cia confidence Now, with respect to the constitution
of the United States, whole Legislative action with
respect to 1t, whether in the way of administering in
ferprctng, or amending, must be governed 10y the ob
legation to support 1t, which is imperative every
citizen, and particularly US. ii is about three
Inops since, in addition 10 the obligation which we
share with every citizen of the country. we were laid
under the specific and solemn obligation of OATH
tosuPport The Constitution of the United States. The
gentleman from South Carolina comes into the House,
tells that IN its most important functions the Cons
tuition OF the United States has wholly failed; and
proposes alterations in essential, so vital as
will, if adopted, lin the Judgment of the honorable
gentleman give perpetuty 10 institutions; if re-
leced, leave exposed within fifty years. TO revolu-
ton and ruin. ask, sir, whether the latitude of a.
rnendment can be strained so far in reference to a
frame OF government, which of the nature Of com
pact between the parties, and which are under the
strongest general and specific obligation 10 defend
link, SIR, ii cannot
am aware, sir, that these remarks NAV seem some
what paradoxical and that far they claim 10 pre-
sent argument, the answer is ready viz: that the
article OF the Constitution which provides for lis
amendments is an integral part of the instrument; that
there. the obligation support it and adhere to H. as
compact, modified uiDnDo ofI,a
words that we do, while amending, support it. We
do wme ameDding, support it. and adhere 10 il; but
the distinction STILL recurs, that TO amend is thing
essentially TO change another. To amend is to make
changes consistent with the leading provisions of the
Constitution, and by means of which, those leading
provisions will go INTO happier operation Can this be
the same thing as to change, what CALL while we
propose The change, those essential provisions them
selves
Let us look TO the article of The constitution which
'sccrtains the right and power Of amendment. The
'ii!h article of the Constitution fixes the mode OF
which amendments shall be made, with this proyiso,
that before the year 1903, no amendment shall be made
at shall reach the first and fourth clauses of the ninth
section OF the first article, and also chat State shall
without ITS consent be deprived of its equal suffrage
m the Senate. These the only express limitations
oftEie amending power. Now one Of two propositions
must be maintained: either, that these two erD5ess
limitations the Oniy limitations of the amendna.
power, that there is prior limitation ofhe anerd-
ing power, growing ont of the of the cCnstit;-
lion compact. Unless admit ihe later propo-
sitI0n, there's noting 10 prevent combination Of two
thirds OF Congress, the first instance and three
quarters OF the States in The second, from deprving the
remainder the States any advantage they possess
in these provisions of the constitution which euarautc
the federal eqnay, and which not 30 be touched
without unanimous consent. Ray, sir. without this
prior limitation Of the amending power there is moth
ing TO prevent The only express limitation which now
exists from being itself removed By way Of amendment
and leaving the fifth article without conditions The
necessity Of admitting ihs prior limitation peculiarly
apparent IN Toe case of all proposed alterations which
'ncqu1Hy affect the various portions Of the country
am, therefore, strongly inclined TO think that tIc
principle Of this implied limitation must always be CON
suited: That this must show US in each case how far
alterations may go, and that it does dictate TO u
that amendments must DC confined TO those changes
,vic necessary not TO alter the essential provisions
Of tire constitution, but TO carry them into more perfect
and happier operation IN fact, / can conceive no
maxim in politics moro dangerous false, than
that written compact of government be construed
to look forward TO its worthlessnes tat il can be
supposed TO be within the competence of body Of 20.