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


resist by force: and her cause would be
sacred in the eyes of just men, and sanct
fled in the eyes of a just Cod Let me 90 a
little further. Can three-fourths of the
| States make an amendment to the Constitu
tiOn Ofthe United States which shall prohibit
the State of Ohio from having two houses
in its Legislative Assembly, My colleague
would notagree to that. Why not? 1t is
not prohibited In the Constitution. The
letter of the Constitution is not against it.
1t is an amendment which may be republi-
can in form; it contravenes no tenet of re-
publicanism that a 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
because the control of the States over their
internal affairs is equally at its foundation.
] And know my colleague too well to sup
pose that he would not join with me in say
ing that such a usurpation of power on the
part of three-foufJhs of the States would
justify ourOwn State in drawing the sword.
Sir, can three-fourthS of the States pro-
vide an amendment to the Constitution by
which One-fourth should bear all the taxes
of this Government? 1T is not prohibited.
To be sure there is Il rule in the Constitu-
tiOn that taxation shall be uniform, but
that provision, according to the theory of
my friend from Ohio, is revokable and
changeable as the rest. The gentleman
knows that that amendment would not he
within the scope Of the power granted to
three-fourths of the States and that it
would justify resistance.
Can three-fourths of the States, by an
amendment to this Constitution, subvert
the State governments of one-fourth and
divide their territory among the rest? 1t is
not forbidden; | read no prohibition in the
language of the Constitution, and yet my
| colleague. would not contend that could be
done. He would justify resistance.
Can three-fourths of the States so amend
the Constitution of the States as to make
the northern States of this Union slave
holding States? The gentleman from Penn
| sylvania Mr.. Thayerl at the last session
said that in his judgment it might be done.
know that the majority of this House
| would repudiate that doctrine. | would re-
pudiate it myself. Believing as do, that
the Federal Government can no more make
a slave than it can make Il king, |, for one,
would be ready to resist it to the last eXtrem-
ity.
Mr.. THAYER. think the gentleman from
Ohio does not precisely quote the answer
that / gave to the question that he has just
referred to. If recolect rightly the answer
which / gave to the question upon the oc-
casion referred to, it was that so far as
slavery could be rendered lawful, con-
stitutional provision making it lawful mall
parts of the United States would have a
binding and legal effect upon the people of
the United States.
Mr.. PENDLEToN. l understood that to be
the position of the gentleman from Penn
sylvania, and If | expressed myself clearly
meant so to represent him correctly, and [
meant in behalf of myself to repudiate that
proposition, for | do not believe that it lies
within the power of three-fourths of the
States to give to the Federal Government
the power to make the citizens of State
slaves within its jurisdiction.
Mr.. THAYER. The gentleman still, l
think, fails to apprnhPnd the character of
the answer which | gave his question. l
have never conceded that an amendment ora
law of the barbarous character suggested
by the question would have moral force
or a moral obligation upon the people of the
United States. But what said, in answer
to the question Of the gentleman from Ohio
was, that 1t would have the force of law, the
force of all amendment of the Constitution;
that the law, if it was opposed to the in
,alienable rights of the people of the United
States, would be, if | may use eontradc-
tory expression, an unlawful law, law
which you could not enforce, a law contra
vening the inalienable rights of the citizens
of this country. aat ~
| hope, sir, that have made myself un-
dtrstood. | do not wish to be placed in the
position which the last remark of the
gentleman from Ohio assigned to me, of
saying that either law ofCongress or any
amendment of the Constitution which could
be adopted by the people of the United
States could introduce slavery into State
but say that so far as it would have the
effect of law it would legalize it. u..
Mr.. PENDLEToN. Mr.. Speaker, l would
not do Injustice to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania. as | believe he well knows.
go step further than he does. say that
it would not be binding in morals; | say
that il would not be binding in law. 1t
would be illegal. 1t would be void. 1t
would have no more sanction than that
which the power of those who chose to i'm
pose it would be able to give to it. 1t
would be binding on those who would
come within the power of the sword of
those who made it. and on no other.
Mr. WILSON. Will the gentleman permit
me to ask him question? arst
Mr.. PENDLEToN. Certainly. a.f
Mr.. WILSON. Mr.. Speaker, If that be the
position which the gentleman designs to
occupy.I | should like to have that gentle
man inform the House where any portion of
the people of this country derived the
power to make any other portion of the
people slaves in the first instance.
Mr.. PENDLETON. They did not derive it
from the Constitution of the United States.
Mr.. WILSON. , ask where they did de-
rive 1t.
"a Mr.. PENDLEToN. They did not derive it
from the Constitution of the United States.
They did not give to the Constitution, or
rather to the Government of the United
States which the Constitution formed, the
.s..l.A L. -. e.. a.. z IA