The Bedford gazette. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1805-current, 1869-04-23
SPEECH OF noS. p. GRAY MEEK

Mr.. MEEK. Mr. Speaker, it is
scarcely TO be expected that after so
many able and eloquent arguments,
made by nay Democratic colleagues a.
gainst the passage of this resolution,
that / can add anything that will eth
er convince, instruct or interest the
gentlemen who are to vote upon this
question. But, Mr.. Speaker, as / have
the honor to represent an honest, in
telligent and patriotic white constitu-
eney, / would be false not only to them
bat to my State, my race and TO my
self, were / to permit this great, this
most appalling iniquity to be consum-
mated without raising my voice to
protest against it. This resolution to
ratify what is termed an amendment
to the Federal Constitution, involves
two questions, both Of which are great
fundamental principles in our system Of
goyernment-questious which are the
very corner stones upon which our Re-
public was erected questions upon the
termination of which not only rests
the perpetuity Of our Commonwealth,
but the future of our race and the safe
ty of society. These questions are the
RIGHTS OF THE STATES AND THE
STATUS OF THE RACES.
To treat these questions as they
should be treated would certainly take
a much older, abler and better inform
ed person than myself; but, sir, have
too much love for my State, too much
pride for our proud old Commonwealth,
too much regard for its honor, well
fare, power and worth to sit silently
by and see her rights trampIed upon,
her powers usurped, her privileges a
briged, aye, sir, her very existence
blotted out by usurpation of the Gen
eral Government in the hands of Puri-
tan fanatics and rum soaked Radicals,
as wrong as i: is debasing, as outrageous
as it is infaEaous, and as revolutionary
as it is repulsixe.
1t is true, as has been asserted here
by members advocating this measure,
that Article FIVE of the Federal Cousti-
tuition provides for the Amendment Of
that instrument, in precisely the man
ner that this so called amendment is
proposed to be made: bat it is equally
true that that same constitution limits
the power of amendment to such mat
ters only as come within the jurisdic-
tion of the General Government. Two
ofthegelimitatious were expressly y made
in the same article which provided a
mode of amendment, and others result
from the general character of the Con-
stitution, and particular provisions
within it.
Among the general principles under
lying our Federal Constitution, which
operates as limitation upon the right
of amendment, is the fact that ours is
republican form of Government. No
change in Constitution, or any addi-
ton to it, which would transform our
Government intoa monarchy would be
a legitimate amendment. Such a
change, instead of being an amend
ment would be rank revolution; and
even if the revolutionists were able to
pass it through the prescribed forms
and put it into practicIe effect, its va
lidity, if it had any, would not result
from the legitimate right of amending
the Constitution, but upon the despot-
ic prieiple that might makes right.
Another general principle which oper-
ates as a restraint upon the right of a
mendment is explicitly expressed in
article ten of the amendments, which
declares: ''The powers not delegated
to the United States by the Constitu-
ton nor prohibited by it to the States
are reserved to the States respectively
or to the people" And Section eight of
that instrument sets forth plainly what
powers were delegated to the law ma
king power of the United States, as
well as those prohibited by the States,
and nowhere and at no place, or under
no construction, can there be found au-
thority for this attempted usurpatiOn
ofthe reserved rights of the States
The question of suffrage elective
franchise-to which this proposed a.
mendment relates, is precisely one Of
those questions which have been ''re-
served to the States respectively or to
the people," BY no word or syllable
of the constitution has the Federal
Government been invested with any
power or authority in regard to this
subject. The two houses of Congress,
even by unanimous vote, have no
more constitutional right or power to
propose such an amendment-no, net
amendment but revolution-as that
which we have under consideration,
than the Parliament of Great Britain.
the Corps Legislatiff of France or the
Cortes of Spain. 1t is subject not
within its jurisdiction, and the peopleof
the States whose rights are to be tram
pied upon and crushed out by this most
Infamous usurpation, would be justi-
fable in revolt-wiII be towards if
they do not resist.
Why, sir, if three-fourths of the
States, through the General Govern
ment, have the power to strike the
word "white" from the Constitution
OF Pennsylvania, as this pretended a
1neldment proposes, has it not the
right to strike out any word, sentence
or section within it? If it can strike
out the word "white," can it not strike
out the very first section of the first ar
ticle, which creates this body, now
ready to admit by it votes that this
power belongs to the General Govern