New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1866-04-02

lot tne purpose OF llls usQuIslLOl, Will nob III
sist that other clause article three, which says
that the number of representatives shall not ex-
coed one for every thirty thousand, but each State
shall have at least one representative" Isay do P
not insist on this because the former is sufficient
for my purpose, namely: to establish the PROPOSE
ton that the present Congress is illegal; and Il
therefore, its legislation unconstitutional and void
From the proviso found in the sabove recited ar
ticle providing for amendments it seems there was
one subject of SO great interest in the estimation
of the trainers of the Constitution that they made
the Constitution unsusceptible of amendment on
that subject until after the year 1903. That sub
ject was the importation of Africans into this
country. But the second proviso seems to have
been of infinitely higher consideration in the mind
of the convention for they provide, without limit
of time and regardless of circumstances, that no
| State (by any amendment whatever), without its
consent shall be deprived of its equal suffrage IN
the Senate" Thus, you see that so sacredly dd
| our fathers cherish the right of representation
that they put it out of the power OF any success
sive or subsequent convention Or Constitution
mongers to approach that sacred right even by
amendment. And to-day, all the powers OF the
| government combined, could not so amend the
Constitution of the United States, as by authority
thereof to deprive any State of her Senators
in the Congress. Is this so? If the Constitution
| could not be so amended as to authorize such an
act, then it would seem that it was the will of the
trainers of that instrument that it never should be
40 amended; and therefore, in their minds, at
least that no State should without its consent, be
deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. You
will observe, Mr.. Editor that the fact is not simply
that under the Constitution no one State can be
deprived of it's equal suffrage in the Senate, but 1t
goes farther, and asserts that under the Consttu-
ton no amendment, even to SO change that instru
ment as to authorize such an act, Is under any
state of circumstances permitted. If this be so,
then what is the legal consequence OF the TACT,
that one State or more is deprived, without their
consent of this highest of all rights-equal suffrage
in the Senate | answer, that the proviso we are
considering. is in the nature of prohibitory law
and it is universally admitted that whatever is
It done in contravention of prohibitory law is null
Then it would follow that whatever has been done
nv Congress since the rejection of the Southern
Senators was done in contravention OF prohlbl
tory law and is therefore null Now do not holt
that the legislation of Congress during the absence
of the Southern Representatives and Senators @
their own accord during the war, is null and void
m hold the contrary. Because then their absenc
was voluntary. albeit revolutionary in its cbarat
ter But whenever their absence ceased to
voluntary and became such by rejection, or to7c
then by that act the Congress became daSsotced-
revolution enthr0ned, and anarchy and rum mig
seated. If it requires, under the original law TIL
+ every State in the Union shall be represented
n Congress in order to constitute legal Congress
then it seems to follow that Congress fro
whose deliberations any State has been deprive
without its consent, is an incomplete Congress
4 and being incomplete is Illegal. And as long
irc the Southern States are deprived of their ECU
suffrage in the Congress by the action of the +
mainder of that Congress, so long is the Copgre
dissolved. So long, of course, is it illegal, ana
n long, of consequence, are its laws and resouto
without the sanction of the Constitution and VII
| out legal force.
!, Section 10 of article l says :" No State sh
enter into any treaty, alliance" ETC.; and aga
:. No State shall, without the consent of Congre
La imposts or duties on imports or export
etc; and again, "No State shall, without the c.
,ars sent of Congress, lay any duty on tonnage Ike
troops or ships of war in time of peace etc.
again, section 8: Every bill which shall h;
bling passed the House of Representatives and the
ate shall, before it becomes law, be presen
aling to the President of the United States If he
prove it. he shall sign it. But if not, he 81
ming return it, etc, And again: Every order. RI
luton or vote, to which the concurrence of
Senate and House of Representatives may be
mons cessary except on a question of adjournm
shall be prese nted to the President of the I'm
States and before the same shall take effect 8
AN be approved by him. etc. These extracts
| tain contend, the substance of so many prO
tory laws embraced in the Constitution, and
with they are not so prohibitory in their character
form the nroviso that no amendment shall be mad
oleton the Constitution DISTINGUISHING sovereign 81
essrs. In the one case the Constitution may be
work, amended as to change the effects of those pro
ess in tory clauses but in the other case such
Apply, ment is possible and therefore the existenc
'trious such fact under the present Constitution is
strae. have already intimaed, destruction OF Cong
have or revolution. 1t is disruptve of government
} have center to circumference, and demands from
Wy en- strong arm of the government that such re
nave ton be suppressed.
e been But let US look little into the nature Of
world prohbtory clauses. The first prohibition is
vas an State shall enter into any treaty or alliance,
entury. Now. suppose Massachusetts should enter i
Or died treatv with England in regard to the fish
left to would that treaty be valid and binding the
manage, eminent Of the United States? And why not
ucaton conse If was an exercise of power by the
sixteen rrobibited to it by the Constitution. And,
county State shall, without the consent of Congress
up this anv imposts or duties on imports exp
at West Now, suppose Vermont or Georgia in her
eipn capacity, should lay imposts or duti
ted sec goods imported into her seaports from 81
his APP would that be legal? And why not? Beca
merit in would be an exercise of authority prohibit
lere, he the Constitution, But take the last inst
health, cited, that which prohibits any enactment o
oh, 1851, Houses Of Congress becoming law until
expert received the approval of the Presnent'
airy insti- been returned with his objections: suppos
cClelan, bill pass both Houses of Consress-the
ed when mems Bureau bill, for instance q
it drifted fail to receive the Presidents sgnatur
'nea' ana it law And why not? Because an essent
lf.1. requisite of the Constitution is wanting TO
" Oh VIZ law namely, the signature Of the presla
,,s, in other words, it would be an exercise q
sne ity on the part of Congress prohibited 10 u
, s Wv cur . fundamental law and therefore such
INC such an enactment would be no law at al.
'no fa'e propositions are not doubted at all Ev
admits them, AMI everybody acts .upol
A GRAND Then would like to know in all hum'lit
II will bel Congress finds authority for disrupting U
evening by driving from its halls the Representa-
nv No. l. Senators of eleven sovereign States, and
. co-nr,i ung, Notwithstanding their forced absenc