260 



CONGRESS, U. S. 



of the States could not be found to ratify any 

 such provision as that. Why, sir, the thing is 

 just as likely now to be done in the future as 

 it was likely, when that Constitution was fram- 

 ed, that in seventy-five years a dominant party 

 in this country would attempt to invade a State 

 to determine the question of what should be 

 property by abolishing an existing institution. 



" But, sir, this provision goes further. It is 

 not only prospective in character so as to effect 

 future rights, but it absolutely proposes by an 

 amendment of the Constitution to sweep away, 

 and blot out hundreds of millions' of dollars 

 worth of property in the States. That is the 

 destruction of property. It operates for the de- 

 struction of property, because if this amendment 

 becomes incorporated in the Constitution and is 

 submitted to, that property ceases. Then, I ask, 

 where is the difference in principle between the 

 destruction of this amount of property invested 

 in slaves, and the destruction of that amount 

 of property invested in manufactures, in agri- 

 culture, or in the mechanic arts? 



" Again, can a convention frame an amend- 

 ment, or can Congress propose an amendment 

 to the Constitution, which, being ratified by 

 three-fourths of the States, shall become the 

 supreme law of the land, by which there shall 

 be made an equal distribution of property 

 throughout the United States? Can they do 

 that ? Let it be known that it is within the 

 power of three-fourths of the States to do that, 

 and a party may rise up in the country most 

 clamorous for the exercise of that power. I 

 apprehend, however, it will be admitted that a 

 convention of three-fourths of the States can- 

 not propose an amendment, which, being rati- 

 fied by three-fourths of the States, can do any 

 of the things that I have mentioned. 



" The sinfulness of slavery or the evil of sla- 

 very among those with whom it exists is not to 

 be invoked as affording power, in the absence 

 of any thing else, to make this proposed change. 

 If that be the source whence is derived the au- 

 thority to make this amendment to the Con- 

 stitution it is an authority against which I can- 

 not argue, for the simple reason that I and my 

 antagonist never could agree." 



Mr. Clark, of New Hampshire, followed, say- 

 ing: "Mr. President, I do not propose to dis- 

 cuss at large the power of Congress to propose 

 this amendment to the States. I find in the 

 Constitution as it now stands this provision : 



The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses 

 shall deem it necessary^ shall propose amendments 

 to this Constitution, or, on the application of the 

 Legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, shall 

 call a convention for proposing amendments, which, 

 in either case, shall be v,alid to all intents and pur- 

 poses, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by 

 the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, 

 <tc. 



" I understand that course to be now pro- 

 posed. I understand that Congress is about 

 to propose to the States certain amendments 

 to this Constitution. I understand that when 

 those amendments shall be ratified, if they ever 



are, by three-fourths of the States, they wiL 

 be, in the language of the Constitution now, 

 'valid to all intents and purposes.' But, says 

 the Senator from Delaware, you cannot amend 

 the Constitution in this particular ; the framera 

 of the Constitution did not anticipate that such 

 an amendment would be proposed. Has thfl 

 Senator from Delaware carefully considered 

 the provisions of this Constitution ? 



" The framers of the Constitution said that 

 you might amend it in this way, and it should 

 be valid to all intents and purposes except in 

 three particulars: one was in regard to the 

 slave trade ; another was in regard to the capi- 

 tation tax ; and the third was in regard to the 

 equal representation of the States in this branch 

 of Congress. "Why, sir, article five of this Con- 

 stitution shows conclusively that the framers 

 of the Constitution had the subject of slavery 

 directly under their thought and control when 

 they said, you shall not amend it in regard to 

 the slave trade for twenty years, but was silent 

 as to every thing else in regard to it, and you 

 may amend it. There is no provision here that 

 you shall not abolish domestic servitude. There 

 was and is a provision that you should not 

 touch the slave trade within twenty years, but 

 you might abolish slavery. The implication is 

 clear and forcible that you may do it whenever 

 two-thirds of both Houses of Congress see fit 

 to propose the amendment, and three-fourths 

 of the States to accept it." 



The amendment of Mr. Davis was lost yeas, 

 5 ; nays, 32. 



The question now came up on the amend- 

 ment reported by the Judiciary Committee. 



Mr. Hale, of New Hampshire, said: "Mr. 

 President, permit me to say that this is a day 

 that I and many others have long wished for, 

 long hoped for, long striven for. It is a day 

 when the nation is to commence its new life, 

 or if it is not the day, it is the dawning of the 

 day ; the day is near at hand. The day is to 

 come when the American people are to wake 

 up to the meaning of the sublime truths which 

 their fathers uttered years ago, and which have 

 slumbered dead letters upon our Constitution, 

 of our Declaration of Independence, and of our 

 history a day when the nation is to be dis- 

 embarrassed" of the inconsistencies which have 

 marked its history and its career, patent to the 

 world and to ourselves when we have had the 

 courage faithfully, fairly, and boldly to look the 

 truth in the face. 



" Sir, what is the truth ? We have had upon 

 the pages of our public history, our public doc- 

 uments, and our public records, some of the 

 sublimest truths that ever fell from human lips; 

 and there never has been in the history of the 

 world a more striking contrast than we have 

 presented to heaven and earth between the 

 grandeur and the sublimity of our professions 

 and the degradation and infamy of our practice. 

 That day is to pass away, and to pass away, I 

 trust, right speedily. 



" Sir, when the great founder of the Dutch 



