The Massachusetts spy, and Worcester County advertiser. [volume] ([Worcester, Mass.]) 1825-1831, 1826-03-29
Political.
Mr.. EVERETT's SPEECH

the Constitution of the United States, rela-
tive to the choice of President and Vice
President.
Mr.. CHAIRMAN: rise to address the Com
mittee, in a state OF indispesition under which
| ought, in prudence, to be at home, rather
than on this floor / am opposed to the reso-
lutions of the gentleman from South Carolina,
| (Mr M'Dutie Ii is with me matter OF
serious question, whether the alterations in
the Constitution for which they provide, are
not, in their spirit and tendency, unconstitu-
| tional. | am not aware that this topic has
i been discussed, or that the limit, to which the
power Of amending goes, has been duly set
tied By the People of america. Meantime,
am strongly disposed 10 think, that the par
liamentary license of amendment, by which
we make what changes we will in the pIopo-
sitions that are before us, has no application
to the Constitution of the United States. In
the ordinary business of legislation, and for
the sake Of facilitating our proceedings, it is
permitted, under the name o. amendment, to-
tally TO change the nature ola proposition; to
convert il from positive to negative, and the
reverse; and this, with good reason: for the
entire proposition, and the whole suhjcct-mat-
ter of il, being within the control of the
House, it is mere matter of convenience, in
point of order, whether we change one propo-
sition by way of amendment, or discard it,,
and bring in another. But, our relation TO the
Constitution of the United States is very diff
! ferent; and no such latitude Of amendment
can be INDUCED with respect to that instru-
ment.
The justice Of this distinction may, think,
be illustrated by simple suppostion, that
should go to vary the relation in which we
stand, even to ordinary matters of legislation.
ln some Representative governments, that of
France for instance, all bills are introduced
I by the officers Of the crown, who are bound
by their duty and oath of Office to support
them, if required. Suppose something like
this existed in our government; and that you,
sir, as Chairman Of the Committee of Ways
and Means, were under an obligation of this
kind, to support the leading appropriation
bills OF the year. Should you esteem il to be
consistent with that obligation to introduce,
under the name Of amendments, essential
changes in the provisions of those bills /?
Would not such step, on your part, be d.
rect breach of official confidence? Now. with
respect to the Constitution of the United
States, our whole legislative action with res
pect to it, whether in the way OF administer
ing, interpreting, or amending, must be gov
erned by the obligation 10 support it, which is
imperative on every citizen, and particularly
E so on US. 1t is about three months since, in
0 addition to the obligation which we share
with every citizen of the country, we were
: laid under the specific and solemn obligation
T, OF an oath, to support the Constitution of the
United States. The gentleman from South
Carolina comes into the House, tells us that,
IN its most important functions, the Constitu.
ton Of the United States has wholly failed
and proposes alterations in il so essential, so
Wit 81 mill a,lo taI AZ s,,Ao
} the honorable gentleman,) give perp.tuity Il
our institutions; if rejected, leave us expos
ed, within fifty years, to revolution aud ruin
| ask, sir, whether the latitude OF amendment
can be strained so far, in reference 10 frame
; OF government, which is of the nature of Z
r compact between the parties, and which We
are under the strongest general and specific
obligation to defend. think, sir, it cannot.
am aware, sir, that these remarks may
seem somewhat paradoxical; and that, as faI
as they claim to present an argument, the an
swer is ready, viz: that the article Of the Con-
stitution which provides for its own amend
ment, is an integral part of the instrument
that, therefore, the obligation to support il
and adhere 10 it, as compact, is modified by
this amending power; in other words, that
we do, while amending, support it. We do
while amending, support it, and adhere to it
but the distinction still recurs, that TO amend
: is one 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 provision.
will go into happier operation. Can this be
the same thing as 10 change, what we call
while we propose the change, those essential
provisions themselves?
} Let us look TO The article of the Constitu.
ton which ascertains the right and power o
amendment. The fifth article of the Consb
tuition fixes the mode in which amendment
shall be made, with this proviso, that, before
the year 1903, no amendment shall be made
that shall reach the first and fourth clauses o
the ninth section of the first article, and alsc
that no State shall, without its consent, be
/, deprived Of its equal suffrage in the Senate
: These are the only express limitations oF ths
amending power. Now one or two PROPOSE
tions must be maintained either, that these
two express Limitations are the only limitation:
of the amending power, or that there is &
prior limitation of the amending power, grow.
ing out of the nature of the Constitution as
compact. Unless we admit the latter prop.
ositon, there is nothing to prevent combin
alton of two-thirds of Congress, in the first IN
stance, and three-quarters OF the States in the
second, from depriving the remainder OF the
States of any advantage they possess in those
: provisions of the Constitution which guaran
ty the Federal equality, and which was no
= to be touched without unanimous consent
Nay, sir, without this prior limitation of tn,
: amending power, there is nothing to proven
= the only express limitation wisioh eH;st
from being itself removed by way of amend
, ment, and leaving the fifth article withou
conditions. The necessity of admitting thi
prior limitation is peculiarly apparent in til
case of all proposed alterations which une
qually affect the various portions of the coun
try.
am, therefore, strongly inclined 10 think
that the principle OF this implied limiiatio
must always be consulted, that this must shov
liz in eaCh case how far oIlr alterations ma