Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1865-01-19


it though all the devils in the South and
North should confront me with their wrath!
Show me that by voting against 1t facili-
tate the re-establishment of the Govern
ment in all its integrity, and my vote shall
be against it.
Mr.. Kasson-I rise in order to ask the
gentleman If at this point, as well as any
where in his argument, he will permit me
to call his attention to asuggestion he made
before, and which seems to have been touch
ed upon by his last point more clearly than
elsewhere; and that is the charge that the
tendency of this amendment is the destruc-
tion of the form and substance of our Gov
ernment. The form of government we all
understand; and even he will not contend
that this amendment changes the FORM
Touching its change of substance, pre-
sumo he alludes to the charge he made the
other day of its effect beinga Capitalization
of power. Am right2
Then wish to ask him upon this point
that we may not be misled by misappli-
cation of terms-to explain what he means
by such Capitalization. ! will say what
understand by it. When read, the other
day, an extract from letter of the original
convention which formed the Constitution,
and unanimously adopted by them, this
phrase occurred in it:
Consolidation of tho Union
rs the great object of the trainers of that
system of government. Objection was TAX
ell to it by the gentleman from Indiana,
Mr.. Voorhees, but take it in its length
and breadth and l call the attention of the
gentleman from Ohio to the distinction be-
tween consolidation" of the Union and the
'centralization" of the Government. Cen
traliZation means when you take the power
from the State and give. it to the United
States. But when you take it both from
the States and from the United States there
is not particle of centralization of power.
That is what this amendment does.
Mr.. CoX-Before get through 1 will
meet the statement Of the gentleman. be-
lieve this amendment If carried out, will
have a tendency toward consolidating pow
er in the Federal head. Whatever it may
be termed, am opposed to compromising
powers in the Federal Government
Whether the powers of the Federal Gov
ernment be united in one department, or
consolidated in the Union, would decen-
tralize such powers, take them from the
Federal center, and distribute them among
the States and the people. If you consoli-
date or centralize powers here, you endan-
ger by the excess of power the substance
and form itself of our Government. The
form will soon change to conform to the
substance. But will make that clear as
progress.
III. Another reason for discussing the
question of power is, that it is the most val
liable gift from the States to the Federal
Government; if it be not an express reser-
walton of power in the States. Perhaps, as
both Federal and State Governments take
part in the amendment of the Constitution,
the power to amend is both reserved and
a delegated power. Whatever it is, it is so
valuable that l cannot surrender it. Not
now. If ever peace comes, it will be
through its exercise, upon this very ques-
ton of slavery. regard that Government
with Constitution which has not the lib
erty of amendment as lacking the means of
its own conservation. Such an amendment
is safety-valve, or governor, upon the en-
gine of State. A State without it is in per-
petual danger of violent revolution. Such
an amendment isa peaceful, legal, and salu-
tary revolution. 1t is the beauty of our
system of written Constitutions that, like
machines, with principle of compensation
belonging to them, any irregularity maybe
corrected without breaking the machine or
impairing the movement. Such powers of
change save the State from such terrible
red-handed revolution as that now upon us.
Rufus Choate once described, as If he fore
saw it, the present revolution "as great
sea lifting itself, with darkened sky, and
not very imitable thunder; tempest which
| overturns and successfully resists the exist
ing public authority, arrests the exercise of
supreme power, introduces by force, or by
resort to primary right of nature, a new,
paramount authority into the rule of the
State" Had this bloodless and legal revo-
luton by amendment of our Constitution
been wisely exercised upon this very sub
ject of slavery, as Crittenden, Douglas, aye,
even TOombs and Davis, insisted in 1860, we
would not be fulfilling so sadly the magnif-
cent picture which Choate painted of tenn
pestuous and fratricidal strife!
Sir, when the statesmen of 1860 sought
to exercise this power upon the subject of
slavery, | gave my voice and vote for 1t. l
Know nothing now, but the fear of being
misjudged by partial friends about me,
that should deter me from again asserting
| the power which, with my colleague MIR.
Pendletonl | then assumed. He bravely
resists the popular current to defy its exer-
| else now. l humbly do the same. But this
| | will not do, discard my own words and
| throw aside once cherished principle of
government because its present exercise
may be an outrage upon the sense and pat
riotism of the country.
When first came to this Congress with
my colleague we came under the odium of
.pro-slavery;" we came defending the posi-
tion of Douglas, that Congress had no
right to Interfere with slavery, ander the
Constitution, in States and Territories. We
claimed non-intervenLion as both wise and
constitutional. Again and again, when anti
slavery and pro-slavery zealots demanded
congressional action, we said, "No, no; there
is no power under the Constitution to abol-
ish it or protect it. 1t is local, not Federal;
State, not national. If you would touch IL,
either to extend or limit, abrOgate or insti-