CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



211 



this more legal way of disposing of the evil 

 before us. 



" Again, it cannot be put out of the way by 

 the uncertain and irregular Army orders of our 

 generals in the field in command of our armies. 

 They all deal with slavery in harmony with 

 their own peculiar views. 



"The Constitution gives to the two Houses 

 'of Congress the only legal and certain authority, 

 the only constitutional method of ending and 

 putting away forever an institution that has 

 only brought us trouble and discord at home, 

 and reproach and dishonor abroad. 



" Let the evil now be removed in accordance 

 with the provisions of the Constitution. Then 

 it will be done effectually, legally, and in a 

 manner to command the respect of the nation, 

 of the men that are directly interested, and also 

 of the civilization of the world. 



" I am aware that able men upon this floor 

 have objected to this action, they claiming that 

 the provisions of the fifth article of the Consti- 

 tution do not admit of this construction. In 

 my mind I find no difficulty. The power re- 

 ferred to I am satisfied is ample. 



"Story on the Constitution, volume three, 

 page 688, says : 



A Government which, in its own organization, pro- 

 vides no means of change, but assumes to be fixed 

 and unalterable, must, after awhile, become wholly 

 unsuited to the circumstances of the nation ; and it 

 will degenerate into a despotism, or, by the pressure 

 of its inequalities, bring on a revolution. It is wise, 

 therefore, in every Government, and especially in a 

 republic, to provide means for altering and improv- 

 ing the fabric of government as'time and experience, 

 or the new phases of human affairs, may render prop- 

 er, to promote the happiness and safety of the peo- 

 ple. The great principle to be sought is to make the 

 changes practicable, but not too easy ; to secure due 

 deliberation and caution ; and to follow experience 

 rather than to open a way for experiments suggest- 

 ed by mere speculation or theory. . 



"If I were in doubt upon the subject, I have 

 only to refer back a short period in our na- 

 tional history, and there see the record of my 

 own party upon this question of amendment, 

 and upon the subject of slavery, and in the 

 light of this record and history my way is 

 plain." 



Mr. Mallory, of Kentucky, in opposition,- re- 

 plied : " I hold that this is an improper time 

 to amend the fundamental law of the country. 

 Such an act should not be consummated amid 

 the fiery passions and vehement hates engen- 

 dered by civil war. It should be the work of 

 calmness and of peace. It is to last for all 

 time. There is an idea of perpetuity attached 

 to constitutions and constitutional amendments 

 which does not belong to ordinary acts of legis- 

 lation. They should therefore be the work of 

 unclouded wisdom, and not spring from the 

 wrath and smoke of the battle-field. If we 

 have spent a large portion of our time here 

 since the war commenced in repealing or re- 

 vising or amending our hasty and crude legis- 

 lation, it should admonish us to refrain from 

 laying a rude and innovating hand on the Con- 



stitution itself. When the sky shall again be 

 clear over our heads, a peaceful sun illuminat- 

 ing the land, and our great household of States 

 all at home in harmony once more, then Avill 

 be the time to consider what changes, if any, 

 this generation desires to make on the work of 

 Washington, Madison, and the revered sages of 

 our antiquity. 



" I hold also that it is an act of bad faith on 

 the part of those in power to seize this time of 

 patriotic sacrifice on the part of all to carry 

 out and culminate a favorite partisan scheme 

 against which nearly two million voters pro- 

 tested at the late election. But this conduct 

 has grown familiar to us all, and I barely make 

 the suggestion, as worthy of consideration in 

 connection with the whole political career 

 which this war has been made to pursue under 

 the dictation of an unhealthy fanaticism. 



" But I hold, finally, that the Constitution 

 does not authorize an amendment to be made 

 by which any State or citizen shall be divested 

 of acquired rights of property or of established 

 political franchises. The construction which 

 our fathers gave to the Constitution, and to 

 which we have all hitherto adhered, guaran- 

 teed to the slaveholding States the right of 

 property in slaves. This proposition is too 

 well settled for discussion. It needs only to be 

 stated. It is true that the provision of the 

 Constitution which authorizes its amendment 

 is very broad, and contains but one express 

 limitation. But it is always implied as a limi- 

 tation of power that a well-settled principle of 

 public law shall not be violated. To majorities 

 are intrusted great and diversified powers, but 

 among them, however great and numerous, is 

 never granted the power to rob a minority of 

 its vested rights. This amendment, in my judg- 

 ment, proposes to commit this wrong in regard 

 to every slave State on which it can ever be 

 brought to operate. 1 deny the power. If it 

 can be exercised on the subject of slavery, it 

 can on all others. If the rights of a State and 

 of its citizens on this subject can be destroyed, 

 all other rights may perish by similar usurpa- 

 tions of power. A minority Avould thus be left 

 no resource save that of revolution. I cannot 

 give my sanction to a measure fraught with the 

 entire overthrow of the wholesome doctrine 

 that States have certain reserved sovereign 

 rights which no external power can take 

 away." 



Mr. Pendleton, of Ohio, thus explained his 

 views : ; I have endeavored to maintain that 

 the right of amendment granted by this Con- 

 stitution is limited in two ways : First, by the 

 letter of the Constitution itself; and next, by 

 the spirit and intent and scope of that instru- 

 ment, and by the idea which underlies it all as 

 a foundation. 



"My colleague, who sits behind me (Mr. 

 Cox), and my colleague from the Toledo dis- 

 trict (Mr. Ashley), admit that the power of 

 amendment is limited by the letter of the Con- 

 stitution itself; but they assert that it is limited 



