Washington sentinel., 1854-06-20

images ana optical illusions. Banlsh reason
from its judgmentseat within, and you must
leave slavery or anarchy in its place. Sir, /
know that such pretentions were once raised in
matters ecclesiastical; but thought they had
long since been put aside, rejected as heresies,
inconsistent with the dignity and self-respect
of q rational nature.
If, then, the pretended authority of prece-
dents cannot be rested upon this, ! think ] am
prepared to show that it cannot be sustained
on the other ground that the long-continued ex-
ercise of a pretended right, on the part of this
government, is to be construed into an implied
assent on the part Of the notwithstanding
power. In regard to courts of common law, it
may be so, because the aw-making power is in
constant existence, and has continued capa.
city to correct the courts if they go wrong but
not so in regard to the Constitution-making
power in this country. That rests in three
fourths Of the States, and the action Of three
fourth of the States can only be evoked by
two-thirds of Congress, or by two.thirds of the
States themselves. So that, if you were to ad.
NIT this doctrine, it would follow that, although
the Constitution has declared it shall not be
changed, except by the positive action of two
thirds of the States, yet simple majority of
Congress could change it, unless three-fourths
of the States could be brought into action to
dissent to the claim set up by Congress. We
should thus have, in order to prevent change,
not that it must carry with it the positive CON
currence of threefourths of the States, but that
it should not be prohibited and forbidden by
threefourths Of the States. We should thus
have a different mode of changing the Consti-
tuition from that which is prescribed the instru-
ment ITSELF Let us see, sir, TO what remarka-
BILE absurdties it would lead.
If the Congress of the United States, by its
unanimous action, we're to propose in terms to
change the Constitution of the United States,
that would pass for nothing; it would be in
valid everybody would say it could pass for
nothing, because it claimed directly power
vested elsewhere by that instrument; but if
Congress should undertake to distribute q few
cords of wood among the suffering poor in some
town, or should give q few thousand acres Of
land to some asylum for the deaf, the dumb, or
the blind, why, instantly, by the orce Of prece-
dent and by the force of analt ~, it would be
said, if this has not been contrad,cted and over.
ruled by the Constitution.making power of the
States, Congress has thus acquired the power
to do what it pleases with the public property
Of the Uunited States Is not that the precise
line Of argument which has been pursued here !!
Has it not been founded upon precedents of
this sort? ] refer to this change which gentle
men claim to have taken place in the Constitu-
tion, or rather this construction which they
seek thus to fortify.
But, Mr.. President, if this claim of power
through the force of precedent is good for the
general government, is it not good for the
States also? May not the State governments
claim powers disputed under this Constitution,
and, according to this doctrine, sustain them
selves in exercising them, if not overruled by
three .fourths of the States2 Do they also ac-
quire such rights by force of precedent? If
the rule be good for the one, it is good for the
other. We should thus have different con-
stitution in every State in the Union, and a
constitution which would be liable to be changed
by the action of all the governments, State and
federal, within the Union. To prevent such
changes, the positive action of three-fourths Of
the States against them would be necessary,
which it would be not easy or convenient TO
obtain.
Again: this government is composed of diff
ferent departments, and they sometimes differ.
Who sets the precedent in that case? We
know case in which the Senate claimed the
power Of disappearing of the conduct of the
President Of the United States. The Presi-
dent sent his protest down here, denying its
right to do so. Who sets the precedent in that
case2 We know there has been difference
of opinion as to the right of the treaty-making
power, consisting of the President and Senate,
to bind absolutely the House of Representa-
lives by its action; to whose action are we to
look for the precedent of authority, in the event
that the two cannot agree?
Is it not manifest that if we adopt such 9
doctrine, our Constitution must be continually
changing, and that we shall lose that very pro-
lection it was designed to secure by making it
a written instrument, because we should give
to n mere majority in Congress the power to
make that Constitution, provided it could get
the assent Of the President whatever it pleased
Sir, analogies between the action Of this
government and the tribunals from which this
doctrine is sought to be derived do not exist,
because the one acts under the constant super
vision of the law-making power, and the other
does not. I say, then, that this authority Of
precedent which is sought to be invoked here
to aid this construction, is not sufficient that
no just ground can be found in any such pre-
tension for the establishment of constitutional
powers in this government, which do not exist
under the plain grants Of the instrument itself
But, Mr.. President, an effort has been made
to help out this claim Of power by a reference
to the terms of the deeds of cession Of the differ
ent States. Now, it SO happens that, in regard
to oil these deeds of cession, there are two
types, the Virginia cession and the New York
cession, which were generally followed by the
others; and their provisions required that the
lands should be distributed equally among the
States, or according to their respective and
usual proportion in the general charge and
expenditure, to use the words of the Virginia
cesson. If these cessions were made before
the Constitution, they are still subject to the
Constitution, because all who were parties to
the cession were parties to the Constitution. II
they were made since the Constitution, they
must either harmonic with it, or they are
void because the States have no right to en-
ter into compacts which are unconstitutional.
In point Of fact, however, the terms of the
deeds of cession may be exactly and completely
carried out, according to the construction which
place upon this clause Of the Constitution,
and the practice which would pursue under
it. If you apply the proceeds Of the public
lands to the ordinary expenses I. pvernment,
and to the diminution of taxatioa you then ac.
complish the object precisely, and with mathe-
matical certainty; because you diminish taxa
ton by that amount, and therefore relieve each
State, in the precise proportion of its usual and
respective share in the general charge and ex
penditure. / know, sir, the senator from North