Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1865-01-30

upon CilOSe OUdUeS WHICH TdClHeu IL, DecaUSe
it was in the power of each State to give
up to the Federal Government the. decision
of the status of its people; but the other
States cannot claim to make that decision
except by express grant from each State.
Mr.. GooCH. l would ask the gentleman
a still further question: whether by the
adoption of the Constitution and the amend
ments to 1t the States have not conferred
that power upon the constitutional mali
ity, or upon that power which they have
authorized to amend the Constitution
Mr.. PENDLEToN. | think they have not;
or else would not have been denying the
power for the last half hour. / have been
endeavoring to show that the limitations in
the letter of the Constitution were not the
only limitations upon the power of amend
ment. And have done it for the purpose
of leading gentlemen of this House to a
conclusion which j am prepared to take,
following the line of argument that ! have
done, showing thatyo cannot, under the
power Of amendments contravene the letter
and spirit of the Constitution; that you cam
not subYert republcanism; thatyou cannot
destroy the liberties of the States that you
cannot decide the status of the citizens of
the States. i would lead them to the con-
clusiOn that there is no power on the part
of the Federal GOvernment-on the part of
three quarters of the States intended to
say-to adopt the amendment that is now
proposed and that if you do it, if you at
tempt to impose that amendment upon the
dissenting States by force, it will be their
right to resist you by force, and to call to
their aid all the powers which God and
nature have'giyen them to make that force
effective.
Now, sir, / do not intend to do my COL
Ion frny thn FNn1n1A Il Itpt.; ~ Oh i
the least injustice in stating his argument.
He felt the force of the suggestions which
have endeavored to present. They occur
red to mind accustomed to anticipate the
objections which may be made to the posi-
tion which he assumes. Having laid down,
in the broadest possible terms, that the con-
ditions and limitations imposed upon the
power of amendment are only those which
are expressly declared in the Constitution, he
follows it up by declaration that "in my
judgment, Congress may proposeand three
fourths of the States may adopt any amend
ment republican in its character and consistent
NTH the continued existence Of the nation save in
the two particulars just named" Why does
he impose those two further limitations?
There Is no guarantee in the Constitution
that the Federal Government shall be re-
publican in form. There is no prohibition
Va u tlldIHC vi JlIC OONtTHIuOllU w Il
different and anti-republican form. The
gentleman's own adm ssion overthrows the
foundation upon which his argument rests.
And would like to know from the gentle
man where there is a prohibition upon the
right of three-fourths of the States to dis
solve the Confederation. He says that any
amendment must be consistent with the
continued existence of the nation" | deny
it; say that three-fourths of the States can
dissolve the Confederation. They can an
nul the Constitution. They can dissolve
the Union; but they cannot take away
from the constituent States those powers
which were reserved, not only by the letter,
but by the spirit and the intent and design
of the instrument itself.
But this speech of my colleague contains
another remarkable statement- to which l
line of argument which seems to have been
adopted by the gentleman from Massachu-
sets, Mr.. Gooch, in the question which he
put to me just now, my colleague says:
"Mr. Speaker, Ipresume no man. not even my COL
league, will deny that when the thirteen colonies
States assembled by their representatives in Con-
vention to make the present national Constitution
they might have abolished slavery at once. Or, if
the theory of the old parties is true that arepublcan
Government may authorize or permit the enslave-
ment of men, which deny, they could have provid-
ed for the emancipation of all slaves in twenty fif
ty years. if they had seen MT and if the people Of
nine States had voted to ratfy such Constitution
slavery could not, after the period named, have ex
isted by State law and in defiance of the ma ional
Constitution either in of the old thirteen States
in any one of the States admitted into the Union
since its adoption"
Does the gentleman mean to say that the
ratification of nine States would have pro-
hibited the institution of slavery in the
thirteen States? Does the gentleman mean
to say that the ratification OF nine States
would have made the Constitution binding
upon the thirteen? Itthatis the gentlemans
view, then ask by what authority such a
ratification would have had such an effect?
read in the Constitution itself that "the
ratification of the conventions of nine States
shall be sufficient for the establishment of
this Constitution between the States so rati-
fying the same." Does the gentleman still
contend that the provisions of the Consti-
tuition ratified by nine States would have
been binding upon the thirteen?
Mr.. ASHLEY. | intended, Mr.. Speaker,
to say this: That the ratification of the
Constitution by nine States OF the old Con-
federation practically made them a nation
1t is true the clause of the Constitution
quoted by my colleague declares that none
but the States adopting it would be bound
by it, Yet practically, If adopted by niue
of the thirteen it made the whole, with all
the territory belonging to them, nation.
the trainers of the Consttu-
ton believed that if it was adopted by nine
States the practical effect would be to force
the other four to adopt 1t. / have no doubt
such was the understanding of the MEN,
bers of the convention, and certainly such i
was the practical effect of it.
Mr.. PENDLEToN. Well, Mr.. Speaker, that
Is a most extraordinary proposition. 1t
might be true that, in the course of time,
and by the power of conquest, or by the
moral influences which Government COM
posed OF, nine States would have exerted, |
,be other States would have been persuaded |
% come into the Union, but deny that any |
)ne State would have been bound by any |
atification except thatproceeding from the |
State itself. The theory which the gentle
which, as contained In his speech as printed
n The Globe, Honestly thought, in my sim
,licity, to be misprint-this theory ex-
,lains what the gentleman means when he
ellis us that the Federal Constitution does
lot clothe any of the States with the at
ributes of sovereignty. 0fcourse it does
lot. Nobody ever pretended that it did.
Mr.. STEVENS. Suppose that nine States
lad at that time ratified the Constitution,
While the other four did not would those
ther four have been members OF the
Jnion?
Mr.. PENDLEToN. No, sir.
Mr.. STEVENS. So i say. But suppose
hat three -fourths of the States now ratify
n amendment while the remaining fourth
o not. are the States refusing to ratify still
,embers of the Union?
Mr.. PENDLEToN. That will depend upon