The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1865-01-26
MIR. Pendleton on the Anti-Slavery
Amendment.


1t israther late to refer to the matter
now, as we always prefer to be fully up
with the times, but we cannot entirely
forbear giving to our readers some ofthe
main points in the argument Dillon GEO.
III. PENDLRTON against the proposed
amendment of the Federal Constitution.
The question came up for discussion in
the House of Representatives on Wednes-
day, January IL, and was debated with
much ability upon both sides, Mr.. PEN
DLEToN's speech, especially, commanded
much attention, both on account of the
force and comparative novelty of his ar
gument. The fire of questions by which
he was often interrupted, would have
completely disconnected and confused a
less experienced debater, but 1t only
served to give greater cogency and point
to Mr.. PENDLEToN's reasoning. The
questions were most adroitly put and no
less skilfully answered.
Mr.. PENDLEToN argued the proposed
amendment so far contravened the spirit
and intent of the Constitution as to be
beyond the power which had been
granted for amending that instrument.
He referred to what is called the right of
revolution and acknowledged its eX-
istence, but claimed that the right of
resistance was just as perfect and the
dutv of resistance more absolute. He
contended that the right of amendment
granted by the Constitution was limited
in two ways: first, by the letter OF the
Constitution itself, and next by the spirit
and intent and scope Of that instrument,
and by the idea which underlies it all
as foundation In illustration of his
. position that the power of amendment
is limited by the spirit and intent of the
Constitution, he said that three fOurths
of the States could not constitutiOnally
change this government, and make it an
autOcracy:
WAY is il that this change cannot be
made5 [ will tell you why. 1t is be-
cdrse republicanism les at the very
foundation of our system of government,
and to overthrow that idea is not to
mead. but to subvert the Constitution of
the United States; and say that if three
ilurths of the States should undertake to
las, an amendment of that kind, and
Rhode Island alone dissented, she would
have the right to resist by force. 1t
III Ian har 1ntu N Inv tnrpa. and
her cause would be sacred in the eyes Of
Just men, and sanctified i'll the eyes of a
lust God Let me 90 little further. Can
three fourths of the States make an
amendment to the Constitution of the
United States which shall prohibit the
State of Ohio from having two houses
in its Legislative Assembly. Ny col
league would not agree to that. Why
not! 1t is not prohibited in the Consti-
tuition. The letter of the Constitution
is not against it. 1t is an amendment
which may be republican i'll form; it con-
travenes no tenet of republicanism that
Il Legislature shall be of one house only.
Why could it not be done! Because the
equality of the States lies at the very
foundation of our system. and also be-
cause the control of the States over their |
internal affairs is equally at its founda- |
ton And l know my colleague too |
well TO suppose that he would not join
with me in saying that such usulpa-
of power on the part of three fourths of
the States would justify our own State
in drawing the sword.
"Sir, can three fourths of the States
provide an amendment to the ConStitu-
ton by which one fourth should bear all
the taxes Of this Government! 1t snOt
prohibited To be sure there is rule III
the Constitution that taxation shall be
but that provision, according to
the theory of my friend from Ohio, is re-
vokable aud changeable as the rest. The
gentleman knows that that amendment
would not he within the scope OF tho
power granted to three fourths of the
states, and that it would justify resist
lnce.
Can three fourths of the Stat
amendment to this Constit- IS, by an
he State government alton, subEcrt |
livide their teri -, of one fourth and
5 not forh: .,uory among the rest! 1t
he laden; | read no prohibition in
language of the Constitution, and |
Vet nv colleague would not contend that !
could be done He would justify resist
ance.
Can three fourths of the States so
amend the Constitution of the States as
TO make the northern States OF this
Union slaveholding Statesi The gen,
tleman from Pennsylvania Mr.. THAl ERR
al the last session said that i'll his Judg-
meut 1t might be done. | know that the
majority of this House would repudiate
that doctrine. would repudiate Tiny
self. Believing, as do, that the Federal
Government can no more make slave |
than it can make a king, |, for one
would be ready to resist it to the last
extremity
Mr. THAYER explained that he be-
lieved such an amendment would have
the force of law, but that it would be IAN
unlawful law" law COntravening the
rights of citizens. Nr. PENDLEToN said
that ut would not he binding i'll morals;
it would not be binding i'll law; it would
be illegal; it would be void" Ii would
only have power when enforced 10y the
sword. Mr.. WILSON then asked where
any portion Of the people derived the
mower to make another portion Of the
people slaves in the first instance. Mr.
PESpLEToN replied that it did not como
-