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

~ AMAraAHHHHNM - ~ ma EI#-"
20 saw that | also oisseut from that doctrine j
do not agree that under the article Of the consti
tuition authorizin. amendments we have the night
20 amend the constitution SO a. 70 establish
slavery. or 10 invite the king of Dahomey 70
rule over this country. 1 think The limitation, It
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Pendleton Will
bear with me a moment longer, i found IN the
preamble, - follows
We. the people Of the United States. ia or
der to form a more perfect union, establish iu-
tice. insure domestic tranquility, provide for the
common defense, promote tie general welfare,
and secure the blessings OF liberty TO our
selves and our ~pcsterity, 90 efdain and establish
this constitution
One provision Of The constitution l. that in a
certain way it may be amended. Whenever II IS
amended n must be amended. IN order thatit
NAV have both moral and legal force, in oonfor-
mity with the objects for when the cons tituton
was framed, as set forth in the preamble. And
an amendment which tends TO "a more perfect
union, 70 establish ~Jnstices 10 insure domestic
tranquility, to provide for the common defense,
20 promote the general welfare. and 10 secure
I The blessings or liberty to our selves and our pos.
%terity," il an amendment which, when made &C
cording TO the form prescribed in the c%onstitu-
ton. Is both morally and legally binding upon
the people of the country. But If il be made in
ryiol alton OF these great objects, although II may
~ ' AZ - a III bIRA 1A AlAAE AN
argument would be, in my mind, that the amend
ment We now advocate is IN conformity with
those objects, while an amendment 10 establish
slavery would be contrary to them.
Mr.. Pendleton. | see that the gentleman
from Aassach gets JAR Boutwell, appreciates
very well the argument | am now making, and
he has separated himself IRON my colleague from
the Toledo district. MIR. Ashley and my col
league who sits behind me Mr.. Cox and other
! UQrflamou who h.va uroooaad rno -, fLf. Iotato
In drawing the distinction as to the character OF
the amendments to be made. He repudiates the
doctrine which those gentlem N have asserted,
that the prohibition upon amendments is limited
only TO the letter of the constitution itself.
Mr. Ashley My colleague, Mr.. Pendleton
will 30 me the justice TO say that | was careful
to MAKE the limitation that 10 amendment could
be made anti-republican 10 It's character.
Mr.. Pendleton. | will DO my colleague no in
justice. was repudiating the doctrine OF the
right or constitutional power OF three tourths OF
the states SO to amend the constitution rs that
they may carry the institution of slavery into
these northern states. was seeking to impress
upon gentlemen the argument that there were
other prohibitions than those which were con
tanned in the letter of the constitution. | de-
clared my belief. and Irepeat it, that it is not
within the power of three-fOurths of the states TO
impose upon the dissenting states such an amend
ment. Authority over the status OF its own citi-
zeBs belongs TO each state. It cannot be de-
prived OF it.
Mr.. Goocn. | Will ask the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr Pendleton) whether. III his opinion,
the men who made the constitution could, At the
time they made it. have prohibited the institu-
ton OF slavery within the United Statesl
Mr.. Peudleton. In my judgment the consti-
tuition Of the United States wOnlG never have
been ratified by nine OF the states with such a
provision III il.
Mr.. Gooch. That Is no. nv question. ask
the gentleman whether in his opinion they could
have prohibited slavery without violating any of
the essential and fundamental principles of the
government
Mr.. Pendleton They could nave prohibited
il, it would have been binding upon those states
which ratified it. because it was in the power of
each state to give up to the federal government
the decision of the status of it, people; but the
other states cannot claim to make that decision
except by express grant from each state.
Mr.. Gooch. | would ask the gentleman a
still further question; whether by the adoption
of the state constitution and the amendments to
il the states have not conferie ed that power upon
the constitutional majority. or upon that power
which they have authorized to amend The consti-
tuition.
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 amendment. And | have done il
for the purpose of leading gentlemen of this
House TO a conclusion which | am prepared TO
take, following the line of argument that | have
done, showing that you cannot, under the power
OF amendment, cOntrayene the letter and spirit
of the constitution; that you cannot subvert re
publicanism; that you cannot destroy the liber-
ties OF the states: that you cannot decide the
status oftbe citizens of the states. | would lead
them to the conclusion that there is no power on
the part OF the federal government-on the part
of three quarters of the states, | intended TO say
say-to adopt the amendment that is now pro
posed and that il you do IL, if you attempt to i'm
pose that amendment upon the dissenting states
bv force, Il will be their right to resist you by
force. and to call to their aid all the powers
which God aud nature have given them to make
that force effective.
Now, sir. | do not intend to DO my colleague
from the Toledo district Mr.. Ashley the least
! Injustice in stating his argument. He felt the
force of the suggestions which I have endeavor-
ed to present. They occurred to a mind accus
toned TO anticipate the objections which NAV be
made to the position which he assumes. Having
laid down in the broadest possible terms that the
conditions aud limitations imposed upon the pow
er of amendment are onlv those which are ex
pressly declared in the constitution, he follows it
up by a declaration that. 4" in nv judgment, con
gress may propose and three fourths of the states
may adopt any amendment republican in its
character and consistent with the continued ex
istence Of the nation, save in the two particulars
just named" Why does he impose those two
further limitations7 There is no guarantee in
the constitution that the federal government shall
be republican in form. There is no prohibition
of a change of the federal government to a diff
ferent and anti republican form. The gentle
mans own admission OverthrOws the foundation
uDon which his argument rests. And | would
like to know from the gentleman where there is
a prohibition upon the rights of three -fourths of
the States 10 Dissolve the confederation.
He saws that any amendment must be ICON
sistont with the continued existence OF the ma
ton deny il. | say that three fourths of
the states can dissolve the confederation They
can 4nnul the constitution They can dissolve
the union, but they cannot take away from the
constituent states those powers which are arere-
served, not only by the letter. but bv the spirit
and the intent and design OF the instrument it
self
But this s0eech Of my colleague contains an
other remarkable statement, 10 which | desire 10
call his attention Following the line of argu-
ment which seems 10 have been adopted by the
gentleman from Massachusetts,, Mr. Gooch,) in
the question which he put to me just now, NY
colleague SAYS:
Mr.. Speaker, | presume no man, not even nv
colleague, viii deny that when the thirteen colo