Daily State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1865-01-19

AeNH NEA 1880 aaN+n 49, ~ a j. 1Aa "a
the gentleman from Rhode Island stands beside
him be too may regard it, said TO him, let him
beware how be pushed The doctrine that a com
pact broken In one part is broken IL all, lest Il
might be found that in the past the compact of
confederation may have been broken elsewhere
than in the South.
Mr.. FarnsEorth. VIII the gentleman Weld
10 me for a moment
Mr. PendletOn, / must decline for the pres
ent. / should have concluded What | had to say
bu, for these Interruptions.
Mr.. Fa~rnsworth. just oae moment.
Mr.. Pendletcn Well, | will yield TO the gen
tleman
Mr.. Farnsworth. find in The Congressional
GLOBE of le6l-6l a proposition, made, | think,
from the OF thirty three to amend the
constitution by interPosing this article:
mo amendment shall be made TO the consti-
tuition which wll authorize or give to congress
the power to abolish or Interfere. within any
state with the domestic Institutions thereof, IN
GLIDING that of persons held TO service or labor
by the laws of said state"
On looking over the yeas and nays u pom that
arpeudment | find that the gentleman fr ON Ohio
I voted for the amendmant. nEnr
wish to inquire Of him II, in the winter of
1860 aud IS6l, il was necessary to amend the
constitution by putiing into IL an article thereaf-
ter prohibiting such an amendment to the con
siitutiOn as would interfere with slavery. why il
is that we cannot now adopt an amendment pro-
hibiting slavery
Mr.. Pendleton. The gentleman ought to
know too vel the history of that period in which
he W. an actor to ask me that question. He
was, as | a member of this house at that time.
and he knows that charges we're made upon the
republican party that they designed to do what
their history has shown that they have done, to
interfere With the institution of slavery in the
states, and that proposition of amendment was
offered, L think, by a gentleman from Massachu-
sets Mr.. Adams to test the good faith Of the
republican party.
Several Members Oh. no; you are mis-
taken.
Mr.. Pendleton. Was it not offered BY Mr..
AdamsE Well. IL was offered at all events 10
test the good faith OF the republican party.
Here the hammer fell the hour having ex-
pired
Nj. Ashley. l move that the gentleman have
leave to proceed.
Mr. Pend,eton. l desire but FIVE minutes
more.
BY unanimous consent the leave was granted.
Mr.. Pendleton. Mr.. Speaker, | will not tres
pass upon the attention OF the house. ] had de-
sired III concluding what l bad to say, and in
indicating the motives of myself aud my friends
in making the opposition to this amendment that
/ do, TO place myself upon grounds which |
thought would command the respect at least of
those who are opposed to me.
| was saying, sir, that IL is TO me a matter of
no consideration whether gentlemen from the
slaveholding states agree to this proposition or
not, whether or not il is against the tide OF pOpu-
lar sentiment, whether or not we who stand OPP
posed to it are in a small minority.
Dir. F4rnswor,h. Will the gentleman yield to
the tor a moment =? (Cries of "Oh no."D
Mr. Pendleton. Well. not il it is to press the
Dolpf which ha we already answered.
Mr. FarnsWorth. do not think the gentle
man from Ohio has answered The point.
Mr. Pendleton. Sir, | niIl hear the gentle
man.
Mr.. Farnsworth. | understand that at that
time the power TO amend the constitution so as
to interfere with slavery was not denied. | find
that the vote of the gentleman from Ohio for this
amendment of the constitution which should pro-
hibit aud prevent further amendment of it allow
ing us to legislate upon the subject of slavery ia
the states was an admission by him of the power
of congress and of the people TO go amend the
constitution. If it was not, Why did he vote for
the amendment
NJ. PendletOn. As | said before, the gentle
man ought to know, if he does not know, that
the power of amendment in this particular was
not then admitted by anybody who agreed with
me. Some gentlemen claimed il; quite a large
body OF men claimed il; but | will venture to say
that be will not find in the debates that preceded
the vote on that amendment the admission OF any
member who sat upon this side of the chamber,
or OF a dozen men who sat upon that side of the
chamber. that the power resided in three -fourths
OF the states TO make this amenament. They
deemed that the prohibition was necessary; but,
admitting that there was no power, they did
agree, inasmuch as it was not expressly stated
in the constitution, 70 vote for that amdnement,
in order that in all future time il might be the
subject of no question whatever.
Mr.. Farnsworth. Nobody at that time, |
think, denied the power of Congress and the
people to amend the constitution in this re-
gard.
Mr. Pendleton. Upon that point we differ en-
tirely The gentleman sat here and so did |.
We bad our own views of public policy. as we
have now. 1t may be tina: We understood differ
emily the positions which various gentlemen and
parties occupied at that time.
Mr.. Cox. | will simply say in answer to what
has fallen from my colleague. that at the time
those resolutions were pending this question of
power was discussed, and for one, | held then as
| hold to-day, that we had the power under this
ameDdatory clause to reach slavery pro or con,
and the only question is whether we shall use
that power as then for the benefit of the coun-
try or whether abuse it as now it is sought to
be abused.
SIR. Fransworih. The gentleman is correct in
regard 10 that, and, as | have said before, no
body denies the power. The shareholders upon
the floor of Congress at that time themselves ad
mitted the power and were constantly charging
that we intended to exercise that power. For
the purpose of quoting their fears in that regard,
the committee of thirty three was raised. who re-
ported this article, and it was passed through the
House by the requisite two thirds vote. 1t was
done for the purpose of quoting the fears of the
shareholders who were then threatening to dis
solve the Union because they charged US with
the intention of interfering with slavery by an
amendment OF the constitution, which they all
admitted We had the power to do.
Mr.. Pendleton. | dissent entirely from the
proposition of my colleague, a well as from that
of the gentleman from Illinois Mr.. Farnsworth
The gentleman and l differ about it. We can
not settle it. say, and | am prepared to show
by the debates which took place at that time.
that the same claim was made then which / make
to-day. 1t was because il was believed that that
opinion was not assented to by the extreme gen
tlemen who had just then come into the admin
i~stratiOn of the government, that it was deemed
necessary by themselves TO put forth this decla
ration coufrmatory of the absence of power on
the part of three-fourths OF the States.
But my colleague from Ohio, Mr.. Ashley
and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, lMr.
Stevens and the gentleman from Vermont, Mr.
morrill, differing on many particulars, agree in
this, that the power of their logic is such that no
honest man can dissent from their conclusions,
and that those who DO not intend to vote with