Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1871-08-06

the Legislatures of three-fourths {
the several States, or by convention
in three-fOurths thereof.
Thus it will be seen that the 0nl
agency which Congress can exercise
: in the process of amending the Con
stitutiOn consists simply in the sub
I mission propositions of amendmen
TO theStates. To do which the Con
} stitutiOn requires the concurrence o
2 ttCO.thiTds of both Houses of Congress
There is nothing in the fifth articl
; nor any other portion of the Constitu
tiOn, authorizing Congress, or AM
: other department of the Federal Gov
ernment, to determine authoritatively
i. and finally whether propositions o
amendment have been properly sub
mitted, nor whether they have beer
ratified by three -fourths Of the severa
States. Certainly no mere pOlitica
party has such authority.
THE LANGUAGE OF THE CoNsTTTU.
TION
is, that propositions Of amendmen
shalt be binding only when ratified by
the Legislatures of three-fOurths of the
several States, or by conventions il
three -fOurths thereof. The Radicals
allege that three -fourths Of the severa
States have ratified the Fourteenth
and Fifteenth amendments. The
Democratic party deny the truth o
the allegation, and thus arises an ISSUE
Of fact, an important fact, fact in
yolving the reserved rights Of the
State as well as of the people. Is il
possible that there is no tribunal il
which this important question can be
examined and authOritatively settled
Is it true that the States, as separate
political corporations, or that the peO-
pie of the States have no remedy, nc
right to inquire into the truth of the
facts upon which these amendments
are declared to have been ratified? Is
| ii true that the announcement by the
Secretary of State to the effect that
three -fOurths of the several States have
ratified, is conclusive OF the question ?
! Whence does the Secretary of State
derive such power and authority? Not
! from the Constitution, as must be
admitted by all who will examine,
nor from the nature of the duties of
! his Office, nor from the Executive, but,
as is alleged, he is clothed with the
high and responsible authority by an
act OF Congress.
WHAT AUTHORITY HAS CONGRESS
to determine the question or to au-
thOrize anybody else to do so? None
can be found in the. Constitution. 1t
is not subject within the scope of
the legislative powers and duties of
Congress. IL can do nothing more
than to submit propositions of amend
ment to the States. When that has
been done, the subject is wholly and
entirely within the control and under
the management Of the respective
States, who, in the exercise of the
same right by which they had Origi-
naliy ordained and established the
! Federal Government. may alter its
Constitution so as make il more con-
duciVe to the happiness and prOsperi-
ty of the people.
But nothing can be more clear than
that amendments which have not
been ratified by three -fourths OF the
several States are not binding. 1t
| follows, therefore, that unless the
| Fourteenth and Fifteenth amend
ments have been so ratified they are
not parts of the Constitution, although
both the Radical and Democratic
parties, in their respective platforms,
may so declare them to be.
No one can fail to see the glaring
| absurdity of the proposition that, ad-
mitting the amendments under con-
sideration were procured by force and
/ fraud, and were not in fact ratified by
| the three -fOurths of the States left free
to act according to their best judg-
] n.
/ they can be tackled on to the COnsti-
tuition by a compromise between two
political parties, or by the ratification
Of the Democratic party.
Those who favor what is termed
THE "NEW DEPARTURE
all cOncede that said amendments
were procured by force and fraud, and
not in accordance with the fifth arti-
Gle Of the Constitution, and therefore
not binding, as the letter OF the article
itself declares, still they propose to
put the whole question at rest by rat.
/ flying them and thereby making them
binding. This is an unconstitutional
mode of amending the Constitution.
They say that they are de fdctO parts
Of the Constitution, and they now
propose TO make them de jltre by the
ratification of the Democratic party.
They propose to accept that which
was accomplished by force and fraud
as legal and binding. How much
worse are they who perpetuate a
fraad, or who carry measures by brute
force, .thans those who voluntarily
ratify and confirm?
To submit to that which we cannot
escape or avoid is neither cowardly
nor mean, but to approve and "a tify
voluntarily great wrong is unworthy
of brave and honest men. No party
can maintain self respect, nor secure
the confidence and support of the peO-
pie, which acts upon such a policy.
II the Democratic party abanOns its
principles and becomes the
AERE CAMP FOLLOWERS OF THE RAD.
ICALs,
il might as well prepare for its disso-
luton. 1t Is no longer of any servi ce
TO the country. We are commanded
by the New Departure gentlemen to
right-shOulder shift~-march into the
abandoned camps of the Radicals, and
feast on the Offal Of our progressive
adversary. do not like the maneu-
vre, and certainly am not tempted
by the promised feast. If it be spoils
and plunder which gentlemen are
after, then why not 60 with the party
that deals in those articles. The DEM
Ocratie party never was, and certainly
is not nOfO, a good place 10 conduct a
traffic In that business.
But / am asked
WHAT 1 PROPOSE TO Do WITH THE
AMENDMENTS.
/ have already said that the amend.
ments must stand or fall upon the
question whether they have been pro-
posed and ratified as required by the
tiith article of the Constitution. II
they have not been so proposed and
ratified, then they are not binding.
use the language Of the article itself,
they are not binding" Not bind
ing on the States; not binding on the
functionaries of either the State or
Federal Government; not binding on
the people, or any one OF the DeopIe.
They are void; not vOidabie, but
void. But II they have been pro.
nased and ratified as required by the
lirth article aforesaid, then they are
binding, andas much 50 IS any other
parts OF the Constitution. am one
who believes they were not proposed
nor ratified pursuant to the require
ments Of the fifth article, and in this
have the concurrence OF the whole
Democratic party-the New Departure
men and alias well as q large pOr-
- LlrasNr a k.r,