Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1865-02-01
WEDNESDAY MORNING, : FEB. l.
s.sasfsisE tCommunicated.l n'i'
VIZ. .NImvo's vindication OF Nr'
RemdIeiOn's Position.
THI' ,g7,A TESK1N:


Pendletor, on the proposed amendment 10
the Constitution, a misrepresentation SO ue-
terlv at variance with the argument OF ms
sneeeh. that think it due to him, as well
"a to your readers, to call your attention 10
A. You say, "And when Mr.. Pendleton
comedies. as he does, that three-fourths OF
the states may abolish this Republican
form of Government" and establish III lts
stead consolidated unity, the power OF
amendment is conceded by him In Its full-
est extent.n Now, Mr.. Pendleton concedes
no such thing. On the contrary, ne em-
phatieally deniesthe existence Oh any such
power, for the very same reason Wnich
YOU have advanced, viz: that Nel-
ther the spirit nor the intent nor tne ueslgh
of the instrument itself contemplates any
thing Of the sort" And, By parity ~ red-
so,,ir'o, he claims that ''the spirit" and IN
the the amendment me e Of ths s''i1TIA iT1oTnIsAtitStioh BY
three-fourths of the States, SO as to Abolish
You saw, sWhat would become of those
mowers which were reserved to the con-
stituent States, If our Republican form Oh
Government were abolished, and a. CON
solidated unity were established IA us
stead? Clearly, they would perish Win tne
overthrow ofthis Republican form OF Gov
ernment.v .sAn ......-,....,.,. .....s.,
Take the corollary of that proposition,
and you have Mr.. PendletoRs argument:
"What would become of our Republican
form of Government if those powers
which were reserved (the regulation by the
constituent States of their domestic con-
cerns) were abolished ?" Clearly it "would
perish with the overthrow of those powers
which were reserved and a 'consolidated
unity ,could be established in its stead."-
You call the proposed amendment SUP,
version of this theory Of oar government.
So does Mr.. Pendleton, and he denies the
power of three-iourths of the States, un-
der the pretense of amending the Constitu-
ton, to subvert the theory Of our Government
and this is exactly the opposite of what you
represent him as saying.
You first put into his mouth premises
(not really his) which, If carried out, would
lead to your own conclusion, VIZ tne con-
stitutionality of the proposed amendment;
and then, in order to make an issue with
Mr.. Pendleton, you assert opposite prem
ises, which, when carried out, lead If
resistibly to Mr.. Pendleton's conclusion,
that there is no power so to amend, pc
cause such an amendment is q subverslon
Of the spirit and intent and theory o. our Coo
eYJimept.
What Mr.. Pendleton did say, was that
three-fourths of the States may "abolish
this Republican form. Of Government by
reuol,stion-and so may bare majority, or
even minority of the States-T they hare
the poaoer;;n but that it could not be done
in any other way, except by the consent OF
all the States. -. ~
500 Very respectfully,
.ssgaf ARCHIBALD MAYO.
Mr.. MAYo's communication came into our
hands on Monday, after the commune
cation of "B. F. B." had been in the hands
of the compositors some time; hence it did
~ appear in Tuesdays STATESMAN. 1t
: is substantially the same in character as
"B. F. BIS" communication. 1t is imma-
terial to the question under consideration
what motive prompted cur comments on
Mr.. PENDLEroN'ss peech-whetherprompt-
ed by purpose to misrepresent him, or by
an anxiety ITO make an issue with" him; but
wei may say, en- pdssdnt, that the man who
voted in the Chicago convention for rTHoM-
AS II. SEYMOUR for President and GEORGE FL.
PENDLETON for Vice President, and who
never, at any time, throughout Journal
istic experience of fifteen years, trimmed
to Abolitionism in its mildest form, is not
likely to be much tainted with Abolition
ism Just now, 1t must, furthermore, be
clear to even an ordinarily obtuse percep-
tion, that had we been animated, In our
comments on Mr.. PENDLEToN's speech, by
purpose to misrepresent it or to join issue
with him, we would not have given it to
our readers entire; for if we have misrep-
resented it, the reader will be quick to dis
cover wherein.
The question is, have we inexperienced
Mr.. PENDLEToN? We fully apprehend the
object of the speech. 1t is to show that the
spirit and the ssintent'' and "design of the
instrument "precludes the amendment Of
the Constitution by three-fourths of the
States, SO as to abolish slavery" The point
we have raised is, that the speech is not con-
elusive on this point--that by reason Of
certain concessions the whole power of
amendment is conceded. "B.F. b." and Mr..
MAYO agree in this: that Mr.. PENDLEroN
'sdid say" "that three-fourths of the States
may abolish this Republican form Of Gov
ernment' by Reuolution," and that by "Rev-
olution"f they can establish in its stead a
consolidated unity" This, it is claimed,
can'be done independently Of, and In con-
traSention of any 'legal or Constitutional
power" This they can do, 1t is alleged, by
'sthe right to reuolutionise." Do these gen.
tlenen wish us to understand that this is
1.