Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1869-09-17
Is THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT
VOIDS

from the Sacramento Union Of yesterday. ]
II is time the people took note OF the
views promulgated as Democratic doc
triue. They are aware that Casserly,
Haight, Hendricks, and other Demo-
cratic leaders, here and elsewhere, have
declared the Fourteenth Amendment to
be uuratifed, aud that the Fifteenth
cannot be ratified at all in the manner
prescribed by the Constitution. We
have discussed the argument Of Haight
upon the subject, and, in reply, the
Capital organ Of the party lays down
the principle {: 1t is simply impossible,
under our form of Government, to de-
prive a State of a reserved right with.
out that States consent" That is to
say, the National Constitution cannot
be amended at all without q unanimous
vote of the States. For tho Constitu-
ton consists simply Of grants of powers
previously reserved to the States or to
the people. Everything 10 it is either a
grant or a reservation, and an amend
ment could be nothing moro or less than
o new grant or reservation. The first
eleven amendments were express reser-
vations of powers which it was found
might otherwise have been implied to
belong to the Federal Government. The
Twelfth and Thirteenth Amendments
we're grants Of new powers. No amend
meut can be anything but a grant or a
reservation Of some power. The only
object of a Constitution is to confer
powers and define their nature. To
guard against extreme changes it vas
provided that no amendment should be
made without a three-fourths vote I; and
one change alons-that Of depriving the
States of equal representation in the
Senate-was made subject to q unan-
imous vote. Yet Democratic statesmen
have discovered that this exception is
the rule, and that no new power what.
ever can DO granted without unanimous
vote. The thres-fourths rule can have
no application whatever in this view of
the case for the idea that an amend
ment can be made without comforting
or recalling a power is inconsistent
with the nature of n Constitution.
Not dwelling, however, upon this gen.
eral view of the subject, which shows
the doctrine to be simply secessionism,
it is plain that the Thirteenth Amend
ment is utterly void under this Demo.
cratic theory. That amendment GER
taiuly =" deprives q State of n reserved
right !" to uphold slavery, and copfers a
new power upon the Federal Govern
ment to " regulate " that domestic F."
and "divine I" institution. II Haight's
theory is correct, therefore, slavery still
exists in Maryland, Kentucky and Della
wore, aud may exist in any State. The
reserved right TO perpetuate and eI-
tend slavery can never be taken away
unless every State consents. Unani.
nous consent to the Thirteenth Amend
ment has moi been obtained-Kentucky
and Delaware voted against it. Six
Democratic Senators and fifty-six men,
bers Of the House voted against its
proposition, and Eve Democrats in tho
Senate and eight in the House shirked
the vote. Only two Democratic Sena-
tors and sixteen Democratic Representa-
tives could DO found to sustain it. 1t
was not O Democratic measure. The
institution was sacred, even while its
fangs were dripping with loyal blood.
Now, we are informed that it is un-
constitutional to amend the Constitu-
ton so US to get rid of slavery Width.
er will such craftsmanship and such
constitutional Interpretation take us2
ls there anything dangerous to the
country which it is not capable of re-
viving? Is either National Union, Ma
aonal credito or human liberty safe in
its hands