Dayton daily empire. [volume] (Dayton [Ohio]) 1850-1865, 1865-01-30

within The scope of The power Of amendment
given 10 three four hs Of the States" Wby7
Il Is bot fofbidden. Il d0os hot come with y
The two classes o limilations aud conditions
asserted By my colleague. Why ia it that
this ehabge cannot be made2 | will tell you
why. u is because repdblicanism lies at the
very foundation OF our syslem OF government,
and 70 overthrow that idea 10 not 10 amend,
but TO subvert the Constitution Of the United
States, and I say shat n three fourths OF the
States should nndeflRlse TO pass au amend.
ment Of that kind, aud Rhode Island alone
dissented, abe would have the right to resist
| by iorae 1twodh be her dniJ 10 resist by
force; aud her cause would be 'aergd ia tile
eyes Of just men, aud sauctifed in the eyes
of inst GOD Let me 20 q little furiher
Can three iourtbs Of the States make an
amendment 10 the Constitution Of the Unitrd
| StatoA which shn prohibit the State OF Ohio
| from having two houses ia ia Legislative
Assembly NY colleague would not agree to
| that Why not IL is not prohibited in the
Constitution. rhs letter Of The Constitution
is not against it 1t is an amendment which
may be republican in form; 81 contravenes no
tenet OF republication that "a Legislature shall
be Of one house only. Why codid it not be
done2 Because tho equaity OF The States
lies at the very foundation OF our system aud
also because the control OF the States over
their internal affairs is equally at its fOunda-
ton. Aud know my colleague TOO we'll TO
! suppose that he would not Join with me IN say
'ng that such usurpation OF power on The
part OF three iourths Of the States would
Justify our own State in drawing the sword.
Sir, eau thrcc-lourths OF the States provide
an amendment to the Constitution by which
| ono fourth should bear all the taxes OF this
Government 1t ia not prohibited To be
snre there is rule in the Constitution that
taxation shall he uniform, but that provision,
according 10 the theory OF my friend from
Ohio, is reyokable aud cha1goable as the
rest. The gentleman knows that the amend
ment would not DC within the scope of the
powers granted Ia three-iourths of the States,
and that it would Justify resistance.
Can three lourths OF the States so amend
the Consuuuon,as to u vert he State gtv r
menis OF one-loufth aud divide their territory
among the resl2 II is not forbidden; ] read
no prohibition IN the language Of the Consi
tuition, and yet my colleague would not con-
tend that conld be il done lie would ia, tify
resistance
Can lhree-lOurtbs of the States so amend
the Constitution of the States as to make the
N0rlhetn States OF this Union sIavehold nc
ttale,2 The gentleman from ,Ponnsy lvana
Mr.. ThayerI at the last session SAID in his
judgment it might be done know that the
majority Of this House would repudiale that
doctrine, ! wOud repudiate it myself Be-
lieving, rs | do, that the Federal Goverhment
can no more make "a slave than il can make
king, l. for one would be- ready to resist il
to the last extremity
Mr.. TllAYER think the gentleman
fro. -
wer that gave to the question that he has
just referred to. If ! recoIlect rightly the
answer which gave TO the question upon
the occasion referred TO- it was that so far as
slavery could he rendered lawful u consttu
tional provision making IL lawful in all parts
Of the United States would have binding and
legal effect upon the people Of the United
States.
MIR. PENDLEToN. understood that to
be the position Of the gentleman from Penn
sylvanla. aud II | expressed myself clearly
meant to represents him correctly, and
meant in behalf of myself 10 repudiate that
proposition, for do not believe that it les
within the power of three fourlhs of the
States 10 give to the Federal Government the
powers to make the citizens of u State slaves
within its jurisdiction
Mr THAHER The gentlemen etil,
think, fails 10 apprehend The character of the
answer which gave to his question have
never conceded that an amendment or a law
OF the barbarous character suggested by the
question. Would have : neral force, or "A
moral obligation upon The people OF the Uui
ted States. have never conceded that an
amendment for law Of Lae barbarOus char.
acter suggested by the question would have a
moral iorca or moral obligation upon the
people Of the tIaifed States But what said
in answer loithe question Of the gentleman
from Ohio, ": THAI il would haye tue force
Of law, the force Oi al amendment of the
Constitution; that the law, il il was opposed
TO the ihaliena' 9 rights oil the people OF the
United States, would befld may use a con.
Trajectory expression, an unlawful law, a law
which you could not enforce, a law contrary
dining the eha''enabie rights of tho citizens of
this country, ,,1 ,ol .li'td' itH lo thl'. z
| hope, sir, that J i'd have made myself On
kderslood. i do not wish 10 be placed in the
position which the 'sst remark Of Tho gentle
man from Ohio assgned 10 me, Of saying
tthat either a law OF GongrssS or any amend-
ment Of the Constitution which could he
adopted by the people Of the United States
could introduce slavery into q State, but say
thpt so far as il would have the clfaGt OF law
IL would legalize it, -
! Mr. PENDLETON., =. Mr.. Speaker, / would
not do injustice TO the gentleman from Penn
! sylvanin, ns believe no well Knows 20 a
4 step further than hp does / say that il would
not be binding in mGrals ! say that Il would
not be- binding Ia law II wonld be illegal
/ II would ba void II would have no more
sanction than that which the power OF those
who chose to impose ii would be able 10 give
[ ID il IL would be binding on those who
wDuId come within the power Of the swerd Of
| those who made ii, and on no other
! Mr. WILSON. win the gentleman permit
me 70 ask him a question: ats