The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-06-21

the matured opinions Of those distinguished persons
formed and declared against this monsons construction
In 1893 President jackson vetoed bill for the dsfribu
ton of the proceeds Of the sales OF the public lands and
returned In message in which he assigned strong con-
situtonal objections to the measure In s4l aud In The
i debate upon similar bill, MIR. Calhoun said;
i aH this bin should become law, itwoud make wider
breach in the constitution and be followed by changes more
disastrous than any one measure which has ever ,een
cd 1t would in its violation of the constitution, far be-
yond the doctrine OF former days, which
stretched the power Of the government = Tar as y was .s
wide the limits, while this bill, as shall show
rests principles which, II admitted would supersede all
| limits"
| In the same debate Mr. Woodbury. said:
But the argument, which allows you to give away the
whole Of prncely domain extending from the Atlantic to
the Rocky mountains and even to the rass ocean % Ds
hall where deliberate these to any aud every object
State chooses to the erection ail bounyon wolf
cap the most pay matter Of domestic
with the Virginia platform Of '9s In fine goes much
beyond the doctrine Of the general as that goes
beyond the limitation OF various specific objects enumerated
| In the constitution"
might quote other distinguished authorities such MS
that OF Silas Wright for similar opinion But choose
TO take higher ground, and to examine this claim OF
power to alter change the constitution of the United
States under the pretence or constituting interpreting It,
Sir upon what this authority which is claimed for
preccdents Manifesy upon of two grounds; either
that these precedents, ii long continued, show such
weight of human authority and human opinion the one
side and should control the right of private judg
else that the longconnued and orepeated exercise OF
power by government must at least be considered
having the implied assent Of the constitution, making
power and thus by implication to have maze the consti-
| tuition what those precedents make it.
Now, deny that the first ground OF authority exists;
think shall be able to show that the second does not
apply to the circumstances under which acting
deny that there be weight Of human authority
of human opinion which control overrule the
persuasive influence admit that the opinions of emil
nent men should have influence in forming the
eusions Of my mind and if | doubling, if had
formed particular opinion Of my own, should proba-
bly, be guided by theirs but when my own has led
me to certain and distinct conclusion, cannot give up
that conclusion because Others, matter how many
how eminent they may be, have thought otherwise Sir,
maintain such doctrine that would be to say that
human opinion is the test of trlth and truth therefore,
would change with the country in which happened to
be investigating it, the period ut which sought after
III for it is notorious that upon important subjects human
opinion varies in different countries and in different ages
Of the world would be, sir refuse receive the d
ray from the of light through the mirror Of hui
man into the soul of and TO take it, distorted
and refracted, through many different media could
furnish nothing but deceitfu images and optical illusions
Danish from its udgment-seat within and you must
leave slavery or anarchy In its place Sir, know that
such preensons raised in matters ecclesiastical
but thought they had long since been put aside rejected
Nereses inconsistent with the dignity and serespect Of
a rational nature.
If then the pretended authority of precedents cannot be
rested upon this, think prepared TO show that il
cannot be sustained the other ground that the long
continued exercise Of pretended right the part Of this
government TO De construed implied assent
the part Of the consution-making power In regard to
courts of common law, it may be So because the law
making power isn constant existence and has continued
capacity to correct the courts If they go wrong but not
in regard the power this
try That rests in thee-fours Of the States and the
ton Of threefourhs Of the States only be evoked by
twohirds Of Congress- by wo-thirds OF the States
themselves So that if you to admit this doctrine it
would follow that although the constitution has declared
it shall not be changed except by the positive action Of
twohrds of the States yet simple majority Of Congress
could change it unless threourths of the States could
be brought into action TO dissent the claim by
Congress We should thus have in order prevent change
not that carry with the positive OF
threeourths Of the States but that should be pro-
hbited and forbidden by Ireeourhs Of the States We
should thus have different mode of changing the cons-
tuition from that which is prescribed in the instrument it
self Let us see sir TO what remarkable absurdtes II
would lead.
If the Congress of the United States by its unanimous
action to propose in terms to change the constitution
OF the United States that would pass for nothing would
be invalid everybody would say it could pass for nothing
because it claimed directly power vested elsewhere by
that instruments but Congress should undertake to dis
tribute few cords Of wood among the suffering poor in
some town should give few thousand acres of lnnd
TO asylum for the deaf the dumb the blind why
instantly by the force Of precedent and by the force u
analogy, it would be said If this has been conadcted
and overuled by the eonstituon-makng power Of the
States Congress hes thus acquired the power to do what
peases with the public property Of the United States Is
not that the precise line of argument which has been pur-
sued here2 Has IL not been founded upon precedents
this sort2 refer TO this change which gentlemen claim
TO have taken place in the constitution or rather this
strucion which they seek thus to fortify.
i But Mr. President If this claim of power through the
force Of precedent good for the general government
good for the States also May not the State govern
men claim powers disputed under this constitution and
according to this doctrine sustain themselves In exercising
them If not overrued by threeourhs of the States DO
they also acquire such rights by force ofprecedcn II the
rule be good for the one IL is good for the other We
should thus have different constitution in every State in
the Union, and constitution which would be liable TO be
changed by the action OF all the governments State
federal within the Union. To prevent such changes the
positive action Of hreefourhs Of the States against them
would be necessary which 1t would be easy or conve-
nient TO obtain.
II Again this government is composed Of different depart
mens and they sometimes differ Who sets the precedent
in that cass2 We know in which the Senate claim
dent of the United States The President sent his protest
down here denying Its right TO do Who sets the pre-
cedent in that case2 We know there has been difference
OF opinion to the right Of the treaty making power
consisting Of the President and Senate to bind absolutely
the House Of Representatives by its action TO whose
action to look for the precedent Of authority In h,
; event that the two cannot agree
Is 1t not manifest that II adopt such doctrine our
constitution must lie continually changing aud that We
making II written instrument because we should give
majority In Congress the power to make that con
suon, provided 1t could get the assent OF the Pres
c dent, whatever it pleased.
Sir anaoges between the action OF this government and
the tribunals from which this doctrine is sought 10 be de-
rived do not exist because the under the constant
supervision of the awmaking power and the other does
not say then that this authority of precedent which Il
sought be invoked here aid this construction il MOI
preension for the establishment Of constitutional power
4 in this which do nndcr