The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1858-04-09
WASHINGTON CITY.
FRIDAY MORNING, APRIL o, 1868.

yJNcoNsTITUTIoNALrTY OF THE CRTrTENDEN
AMENpMENT- DESIGNED FOR FURTHER AGI-
TA1ION
The Crittenden amendment contains the following
provision
This admission OF her Kansas into the Union as a
State here declared to be upon this fundamental cond
ton precedent namely That the said constitutional IN
srunent shall be first submitted to vote OF the people
of Kansas and asscnted to by them majony OF the
voters ut election 10 be held for that purpose ana as
such assent shall be given and duly made KNOWN
TO the President of the United States he shall announce
the same by proclamation and thereafter anu WITHOUT
any further proceedings the part of Congress- the ad
mission of the said State of Kansas into the Union on an
equal Sooting with the original States, in all respects
whatever shall be complete and absolute
No one knew better than Mr.. Crittenden, and the
leading men of the triple appliance who acted with
him. that this provision was indisputably unconsti-
tutional The legislative power of the United States
is by the first section of the first article of the con-
stitution, vested in Congress of the United States
which shall consist of Senate and House Of Repre-
sentatives without the power to delegate it The ad
mission Of States is provided for in the third sec
ton of the fourth article in these words New States
may be admitted by the Congress into this Union
Mr. Crittenden's amendment takes this power from
Congress and transfers the admission to those emit
tied to vote in Kansas. Instead of exercising its
constitutional duty, it is proposed to commit the
question to other hands. There is not word in the
constitution that looks to the delegation of the pow
ers committed to Congress by that instrument
Should this amendment become law, members Of
Congress could not inform their constituents whether
they had admitted Kansas not. This question is
not new in principle. In Parker the Common
aceaih Barr. 5O7 the supreme court of Pennsylva-
na an excise case held that the Legislature could
not relieve themselves from their constitutional du
ties and throw them back upon their constituents.
The same doctrine was laid down in Rice Us. Foster
A Harrington 479, by the highest judicial tribunal
in Delaware In Thorne Us. Cramer, Is Barbour liz,
and in Bradley Barter, id. p 123, cases arising
under the free-schoo law, the same rule was de-
cared in the supreme court of New York. The
former case was affirmed in the court of appeals
The aforementioned court, in Barto U.s. Hmrod A Sci
den 4s3, deliberately reviewed the previous decis-
ions and declared that :" laws must be enacted by
Legislative bodies, to which the legislative power is
committed by the constitution They cannot divest
themselves Of the responsibility of their enactment
by reference of tho question of their passage to
The same rule applies to Congress, where the pow
er to admit State or not is vested II admits by
enactng law, and the oath Of the members requires
them to vote for against admission, instead of
throwing the responsibility upon others. If it is
rghtto admit, their duty requires them to vote for it
and if il is wrong, they under the same obliga-
ton to vote against it, and consequences, person
al or political, win justify any other
The object of this avoiding constitutional duty and
responsibility is more commendabe than the vio-
lation of constitutional duty 1t has three objects
in view; First, to bring the black-repubcans,
know-nothings and certain democratic perfcctonists
upon one common platform, where they all stand
together without the responsibility of voting for
against the admission Each of the tri-party has to
face constituents of differing views, and each expects
TO wash its hands of the consequences Secondly,
have attended all voting in Kansas and expect that
they will be able to find fault with whatever
may hereafter be done in that way-frauds.
fights, border-ruffanism, and all that can again
be made to play important part in events in
Kansas. They expect, through such instrument
taty to involve the President in difficulty and con
troversy, let him do what he will under the act
They wish to throw upon him the responsibility
which the constitution has cast upon hem and then
to be able to assail him for his acts whatever they
may be. Thirdly, they expect that this mode of OPP
erations will keep Kansas matters open, and enable
them to continue the agitation through the next
presidential election. They hope to manage mat
tiers to keep Kansas out of the Union, or, if ad-
mitted, to be able to quarrel with act of the
administration which will enable them to overthrow
the democratic party 1t for the American people
to say whether they will approve of this open viola
ton of the constitution this lodging ofresponsibty
for political effect, whether they will require their
representatives to perform their constitutional du-
ties in open, honest, and manly manner.
YESTERDAYS VOTE