Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1869-04-23

=
~. .hskrss IN 1 combat with truth !;
.a.1p. hflsfcd in hostility 20 reason,
10 4 H.ss.f1atIsnl, resisting The innovs.
~. IA hrofrass, have never lacked, sing
i : ~ .n combination. q multitude Of spe-
a @fanntnts which served as spe-
"a. n Iofllnoations, behind which they
Il ~ necessity demanded, take refuge
'6 attack. Weaes this exemplihed with
|.|anco to the opposition TO the pro-
4,.6d FiIlconth Amendmept which is do
0nnosd By Democrats as Infamous, on
|t plea that no authority exists. under
.1f tflsem OF popular Government, 20
/. |'to upon any State, even by an amend
43aInontal atrucfure, by which Is meant
change In the prevailing distribution Of
nd|iicd nanchises among the community.
|dtorv in the articles OF Union. There
va llibcovor, N itB fullest extent, that very
aIaDuse9 power to force An amendment 20
lhf Constitution upon al unwilling and
I.iocllng Stair. is stipulated that three
t0urtbs OF all the States concurring In the
faiiilcAtion OF an amendment, proposed
hccoriing TO specific forms, thereupon
such amendment shall become an integral
part Of the organic law, ana hence SUI
promo over all The .oonstituent members
OF tho Republic. II the dissent Of single
State or even IL one fourth Of the States
could operate To defeat the ratification OF
any amendmenb then the constitutional
provision would become not merely a
nullity, but a monument of stupidity, Tor
IL would lay down conditions that could
not BY any possibility, be fulfilled. Should
ID be Averred, In answer, that the
Constitution docs not intend an amend
ment that would produce the changes
that would result from the Fifteenth
Amendment, II may be replied that this
rebutter Ia only the original assumption,
in modified form, and merely begging
tho question, os tho very point In controi
yersy Is whether or not thin Fifteenth
Amendment can be forced upon an unl
willing and dissenting State. by q ratify
ina concurrence OF three-fourths ofall the
States. The Fourteenth Amendment in.
questionably has made changes in the
fundamental structure OF the States ol
Kentucky and Missouri quite az radical
as the Fifteenth could mako. viii It be
maintained that the Fourteenth Amend
ment is, on that account invalid, mas
much as some OF the States refused theil
sanctionfI Yet the Democratic argpmenl
against sne vanulsy u, y o. tne no rliIeentn ap
pies VIII equaa soiys 70 hne rour.een,n. mn
Even supp1sing' ior sne sake Q. Illus n.
GGauOn, a,s s1ae sneLe 1Le vAcepoonS 70 .n' @
~ onssl'uuon,a"enulng e power, OF h'
nature clsimeu, tnen Mno g. Mnas - V
., ueyeImlne i whgn "a any one ol snesS eAoop
LIONS aIises ~ ,s eacn Ssage u sole Jupgs
ioI Itssn IN ueclulhg tnls ISSUE, lnen eacl
in1. tnuiviuual Ssase possesaes au'noslsy 20 ue
y leas any glvess s,sL mnsnunens .s .oL, iss pre-
IogaHte VI sSJuaSing tuas such nuleno
,, ndeas uoeS VI uoos NOV peIong W sne ca
Spa.s TepslonsApae ~ ciass yelng compsese anu un
Aml,Su, ns auJupgnen. o. tnVanuIy
wouiu 10 seSiletyn, III q pIeyens taslncs.lon
even snougn al INC rest OF tne pVaVei
sloulu SgO CONCUR ln sne opposre opIn,on
NO nsaee. now unlus., oI apsuru, or uog
. maslS suen ueSlslon n,gns po, mere Woult
not no acoo.uing to sne supposition, any
Way 70 Leve,se ~ NO sppeIase OF su
peIyspIy aut1sYIlty Woyia exist 70 oete.
% ni,nS tnas tne oeAv9 nao ABUSED or psostl
.uIeu l.s pserogauve; lnoeeu, its eiscie
Ioh ,.i Wol,iu ne ine sols measure o. lis lu
sl,l sisulcslon, ~ anu iss single acslon wouia y