Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1867-01-05
9, JANUARY 5, 1867.

be deprived of its equal suffrage in the
Senate. 1t will he noIiced that the amend
ment5 prohibited concern solely the dele
gated powers, viz: the mode in which
Congress shall levy taxes and the manner
of voting in the Senate. Here then is O
construction put upon this article by It's
authors. They concede by the proviso that
the acts prohibited would have been legitii
mate under the general amending power
The acts prohibited concern only the dele
gated powers. The inference then is justly
made that the article was Intended to deal
only with the delegated powers, else why
except from the general power to amend
the matters oflevying taxes and OF suffrage
In the Senate, and leave other subjects OF
vaster Importance unprovided for? Why
prohibit an amendment authorizing Con-
gress to impose tax on the importation ot
slaves, ifunder the amending power slavery
in the States could be abolished and thus
their importation made useless? Why like
wise prohibit an amendment destroying
equal suffrage in the Senate II under the
amending power, three fourths OF the States
could adopt into the Constitution a pro-
vision destroying the Senate itself. Itseems
clear that the trainers of the Government
intended that the reserved rights should
be secure in the hands of each sovereignty
which retained them, and that under this
provision authorizzing amendments only
the powers which had been delegated could
be affected.
And here may remark that no amend
ment that has been adopted since the form
alton of the Constitution has interfered
with single reserved power of any State,
but has affected only those which were del
egated and the manner in which they are
to be exercised. 1t has been expressly de-
| cided that the amendments to the Consttu-
tion adopted shortly after its ratification,
were designed to operate as restrictions
upon the powers of Congress, and in no
way to affect or impair any of the reserved
rights of the States. Barron uS. The Mayor
of Baltimore, Peters; James Us. The
State, II Sergeant 81 Rawle, 220; Barker
Us. The People, Cow. 6S6. An exception
to this is found in the amendment abolish
| ing slavery. but that was proposed recently,
and being born in our late civil war can
have little or no weight in determining the
true construction of the Constitution.
| The question remains, does this amend
ment affect or interfere with any of the re-
served powers of the State? | apprehend
that no one will deny the proposition that
such is the effect, if not the object of the
amendment. Itsweeps away the most i'm
pOrtant of the reserved powers, and those.
too, which heretofore have been exercised
by the States without question. 1t takes
from the States the right to determine:
| 1st. Who shall be their citizens 81. Who
shall be their electors; 81. Who shall be their
officers and 4th. How their finances shall
be managed. If the States lose these it
would be difficult to determine what other
reserved rights of any importance they re-
tain. f.tl - ~
l assert, therefore, that such an amend'
ment as this was never contemplated by
those who framed the Constitution, because
it destroys the reserved rights; that it is
not in the province of Congress to propose
it; that it is not in the power of three
fourths of the States to perfect ratifica-
tion of it, and that it cannot be inserted in
the Constitution by the consent of all the
States without changing the nature of our
institutions and making new Government
instead of amending the old. ..
Mr.. President, waving the considera-
tion OF other objections that might be
urged against the amendment as a whole,
such as that it is Inot constitutional Con-
gress which has proposed it,l or that the
joint resolution in which tits offered was
not submitted to the President for his ap-
proval or rejection, or that it is sort of an
omnibus bill, containing several distinct
propositions upon different subjects in no
wise connected with each other, pass to
the discussion of the amendment by sec
tiOns.
The first section provides that all per-
sons born or naturaized In the United
States, and subj ject to the jurisdiction there
of, are citizens of the United States and of
the State wherein they reside. No State
shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities ofcit-
izens of the United States; nor shall any
State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law, nor
deny to any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of the law. a--
object to this section, in the first place,
that it undertakes to declare who shall be
citizens of State. The right of defining
citizenship in State has ever been cOnsid-
cred one of the reserved rights, and except
so far as it is limited by the provision as to
naturalization in the Constitution, has been
exercised without question by each State
since the foundation of the Government.
For the reasons already assigned, when
speaking of the limitations upon the amend
ing power, and which it is unnecessary to
repeat, maintain that this reserved right
of each State cannot be taken away by an
amendment ratified as the Constitution pre-
scribes. 9l G-u0l f q. '.a E,
Secohdly-While admitting for present
purposes the power to determine, by way
Of amendment, who shall be citizens of the
United States, insist that the mode in
which the power is attempted to be eXer-
cised in this section is dangerous, and ut
terly destructive of some of the most inn
portant features of our institutions.
To fully understand what is proposed in
this section upon this subject, 1t is necessa-
nv that we should ascertain what now con-
stitutes citizenship in the United States,
for the section pre-supposes that it is al
ready known who are citizens of the Uni
ted States. The question Is full of difficult
ty, and Notwithstanding many dissertations
and much discussion upon the subject, can
scarcely be considered as fully settled 1t
is to be inferred that the phrase "citizens
of the United States" has the same mean
ing in this section that it possesses in the
Constitution. The question then is, what
is the constitutional Specification of.a''ci
izen of the United States?" The word cit
izet Is employed to mean either a person \
whois subject 10 the jurisdiction OF State, H
owes 1t allegiance, and is entitled to its 4
protection, or one who, lin addition to 4
these privileges, has the right of partici-
pating in the administration of the Gov
ernment. The first signiiieation is one of
exclusively American origin, and seems to
be an equivalent for the word inhabitant;
while the latter is the ordinary andalmostlI
universal meaning of the term and lis |
duubtless that intended In the phrase under
consideration ''A citizen Of che United \
States,n as the term is employed I'M tile
Constitution, insist thereforei is one who,
under the institutions of the Federal Gov
ernmentI has right TO vote for public Off
GERS and IS qualified to hold offices in the