Daily State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1865-01-19
ABOLITION or SLAVERY BY con-
SnTuH0NAL AMENDMENT :
Of Hon. George "a. PEN
.dfef0n in the House OF Repre-
-senfafires, Ian. IIfh. 1868.

Mt. Speaker. 4 snail not Getain TIE house iouE
TO DAY. When this subject vas under discussion
At the last session Of Congress. 1 endesvored to
maintain BY srgumcnt that three f0urths Of the
states did not possess constitutional power TO
pass this amendment. | bad army 81 al that con-
clusion after mature elaboration / have listen
ed with great attention % the opinions Of gentle
men on the other side Of the House who disagree
with me. l have heard the gentleman from To-
va, Mr.. kasson, and the gentleman from Ma
rylAnd Mr. Cressell and ! have listened to the
sweeping declaration Of my colleague hr. Cox,
Of Ohio. Who site behind me / have endeav-
ored TO weigh impartiaiiy the arguments which
they have sdduced IN support OF their opinions.
| am constrained 70 say that | have heard moth
ing which has in the least degree weakened nv
faith IN the conclusion At which l bad arrived.
IL il because | cannot go beyond this question Of
power. BECAUSE / am not al liberty To consider
any other questions, that ! shali couhne myself
exclusively 10 It's consideration.
i will not do nv colleague from the Toledo
district Mr.. ASHLEY the injustice 10 suppose
that 10 bis rgumept on Friday he intended TO
make a complete reply to the proposition which
I endeavored 10 sustain at the last session.
I understand. MF. Speaker. the right Of revo-
lation. j know nhas are its limitations and its
sanctions It's origin is not in human iDstitu-
tons: its sanctions are not in penal enactment
Its home is In the human heart; its origin is in
the aspirations Of man for progress; It's sanction
il the ulfirns ratio from whose dread judgment
there Is no appeal The minority of the people
. may, ii they can, subvert this confederation,
ard establish in it, stead a consolidated unity
Much more may a majority. Three iourths OF
the states may abolish this republican form Of
government, and. TO use the illustration OF nv
. colleague. Mr.. Cox. may elect the king Of Da
honey to be their autocrai; and then. responsible
in the present only to nations and TO God, and
responsible in the future only 10 the ages and TO
civilization, they may draw their sword, and if
they have the power impose that form Of gov
erpment upon the dissenting states.
But ! beg my colleagues Mr. Ooxand Mr.
Ashley TO remember. and beg gentlemen who
difer from me to remember, that the right fire.
sistance IS a. perfect; that the duty Of resistance
il more absolute; and that the cause of those
who resist is sacred in the eyes of God aud man,
and will. IL they are successful, cmman the all
miration of the world, and crown them with the
fame which belongs to patriots and heroes.
But, sir, We are not discussing that right Of
revolution, nor yet the right of all the states TO
amend this constitution. We are discussing the
powers Of change which are granted by this
written constitution. We are discussing tho
powers Of change which by this instrument are
given to the majority and the obligation Of ODE
dieace aud acquiesceDee which Is imposed on the
minority | suppose it will be admitted "a a max
i'm, subject TO No controversy, that wherever
there Is a constitutional power in the majority TO
change the constitution there is a corelative duty
upon the part OF the minority. silently. peaceful
ly and Immediately to scquiesce Wherever
there is the right OF resistance in the minority,
there is no right OF amendment in the majority.
/ have endeavored to maintain that the right
Of amendment granted by this constitution is
limited in two ways. First by the letter of the
constitution itself, and next by the spirit and IN
tent and scope of that instrument. and by the
idea which underlies il all as a foundation.
Ny colleague who sits behind me. Mr.. Coxl
and my colleague from the Toledo district, Mr..
Ashley admit that the power of amendment is
limited by the letter OF the constitution itself,
but they assert that it IS limited by that rule only.
and no other. beg gentlemen to remember
that this Is Dot a question OF revolution or OF
physical force. 1t IL not a question oil abstract
right or OF natural justice, but of power dele
gated by the written text of the constitution It,
self. Prom the time of the ancient prophets be
was an honorable and upright man who stood by
his word though il led to bis own injury.
Now | desire 20 ask. gentlemsa. whether it
is true that the power of change in that consti-
tuition is limited only By is written language2
There are but three points in which that consti-
tuition. by its letter. could not be changed. The
frat was the right of importation of slaves be
fore 1903; the second WAS The rule of taxation,
ard the third was the equality of representation
IN the senate. ne pFOulDillOu OF CuAuZc III
one article was necessarily limited bY the article
itself 10 the year ls0s. My. colleague from
IRE Toledo district. in the speech which he made
the other day, told Us with reference TO this
point:
eli I read the constitution Alright and under
stsrd the force of language, the section which i
have just quoted il to-day free from all limita-
tons and conditions save two. one of which pro
vides that the suffrage of the seversl states ia
thu 4a4.sa ahaH Ia on.al anA that no 80 ahan III
lose this equality by any amendment Of the
constitution without It's consent: the other relates
To taxation. these are the only conditions and
limitations
deny il. assert that there is another iimi-
tation stronger even than the letter of the con
s~tiiution. and that IL il to be found in its intent
and its spirit and It's foundation idea. ! put the
question which has been put before in this de
bate: Can three fourths of the states constitu
tionally change this government, and make It
an autocrscy. IL is not prohibited by the letter
of the constitution.
Mr.. Ashley. Did nv colleague understand
that by my speech ! meant that
Mr.. Pendieton. | understood exactly what
the gentleman claimed, and | am endeavoring
20 run to its extreme the premises upon which
The gentleman stands to-day in order 10 cot
vince ham of the weak point In ms argument.
Mr.. Ashley. i said in nv speech that any
amendment republican in It's character-
Mr. Pendletou. I will come directly 10 the
limitation which the gentleman put upon the
power. need not ask my colleague from Tole.
do district what answer he will make to that
question, because ! have It already. He would
say " No that change is not within the scope Of
the power of amendment given 10 three four;hs
Of the states" WHY 1t il not forbidden. IL
does not come within the two classes o. linita-
tions and conditions asserted Os my collea cue
Why i il that this change cannot b. be made : |
VII tell YOU WHY Ii is because ropublicanism lies
At the very foundation OF our system OF govern
ment, and TO overthrow that Is not 10 amend but
TO subvert the constitution OF the United States
and | say that if three fOurtss OF the states should
undertake - pass an amendment OF that KIND,
and Rhode Island alone dissented. she would
have the night 10 resist by force. II would he
her duty to resist by force and her cause would
be sacred in the ewes of just men, and sanctiied
in the ewes of a Just God Let me 60 on a little
further. Can three fourths of the States make
an amendment 70 the constitution of the United
States which shall prohibit the state Of Ohio
from having two houses IN It's legislative A.
emily. My colleague would rot agree 20 that
Why notg II il not prohibited in the constitution
The letter of the constitution d, not against a..
II l. an amendment which msy be republican n
form : It's contravenes no tenet OF repuhiicanisIn
that = legislature shall be Of one house only
Way could not this be donel Because the equal
ity of the state lies az the very foundation OF orr
-. AA.W-aH -