CONGRESS, U. S. 



265 



whole Government. In my judgment, it is 

 absurd to say that the power of amendment, 

 which is simply a power to reform, a power to 

 improve, imparts and authorizes the exercise 

 of a power to destroy." 



The following was the vote on the passage 

 of the joint resolution : 



YEAS Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Chandler, Clark, 

 Collamer, Conness, Cowan, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessen- 

 den, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Hale, Harding, Harlan, 

 Harris, Henderson, Howard, Howe, Johnson, Lane 

 of Indiana, Lane of Kansas, Morgan, Morrill, Nesmith, 

 Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sherman, Sprague, Sumner, Ten 

 Evck, irumbull, Van Winkle, Wade, Wilkinson, 

 Willey, and Wilson 38. 



NAYS Messrs. Davis, Hendricks, McDougall, Pow- 

 ell, Riddle, and Saulsbury 6. 



The Yice-President announced that the joint 

 resolution having received the concurrence of 

 two-thirds of the Senators present, was passed. 



Mr. McDougall, of California, said: "I de- 

 sire to ask a question for the purpose of under- 

 standing a ruling of the Chair. The ruling, I 

 understand, is that the vote as it stands now 

 has no relation to the States not represented 

 on the floor. I think our vote now being a 

 final vote should have relation to all the States 

 as recognized under the Constitution." 



The Vice-President replied : " The Chair 

 rules that a majority of all the Senators is a 

 quorum, and two-thirds of the number voting, 

 provided a quorum votes, is sufficient to pass any 

 resolution proposing an amendment to the Con- 

 stitution." 



Mr. McDougall: "I only desire the privi- 

 lege of saying that such is not the opinion I en- 

 tertain." 



In the House the joint resolution was con- 

 sidered on June 14th. Mr. Pruyn, of New 

 York, opposed it, saying: "Can three-fourths 

 of the States, under this power to amend, over- 

 turn the institutions, subvert the authority, 

 and change the condition of the other States ? 

 If so, the States might as- well in the outset 

 have surrendered all their sovereignty to the 

 General Government, and the amendment de- 

 claratory of their reserved rights was meaning- 

 less. Is there any person who will venture to 

 claim that any State which adopted the Consti- 

 tution, placed any such construction on this 

 power to amend? 



" Can Maryland and Delaware and New Jer- 

 sey (for this illustrates the principle) force upon 

 Pennsylvania an entire change of her domestic 

 policy and institutions? Can Vermont, Mas- 

 sachusetts, and Connecticut compel New York 

 to submit to their domination over her internal 

 affairs, and to lay down rights at their bidding 

 which she never agreed to surrender? If 

 three-fourths of the States can take away 

 rights now clearly reserved to their associates, 

 what is to prevent the absorption of their ter- 

 ritory by other States? If one right can be 

 taken away, several can be all can be. If 

 one principle can be swept away, all can be. 

 Under such a doctrine States may be annihi- 

 lated and a monarchy built up. These it may 



be said are extreme cases, but they are legiti- 

 mate results from the power to amend now 

 claimed. The right to amend is not a right to 

 extend and enlarge the powers granted un- 

 der the Constitution. It was only intended 

 through its instrumentality to provide for the 

 better and more convenient exercise of the 

 powers expressly granted, in case defects 

 should be found to exist in the practical work- 

 ing of the system. The amendment as to the 

 manner of electing the President and Vice- 

 President illustrates this view. 



" To construe the Constitution as authoriz- 

 ing three-fourths of the States to impose upon 

 the residue terms and conditions of Union not 

 agreed upon or assented to by them, would 

 be a wide departure from its spirit, and a 

 monstrous usurpation of power; and this it 

 is which we are now called upon to do ; to 

 take a further step to alienate the feelings of 

 the South, and to embarrass and impede their 

 return to the Union. No matter what the 

 question may be, whether that of slavery or of 

 any other domestic institution or right reserv- 

 ed to the States ; so long as it is reserved, Con- 

 gress has no right to interfere with it in any 

 way." 



Mr. Wood, of New York, said : " Mr. Speak- 

 er, I see many objections to this amendment, 

 while I fail to find one reason in its favor. I 

 am opposed to it because it aims at the intro- 

 duction of a new element over which Govern- 

 ment shall operate. It proposes to make the 

 social interests subjects for governmental action. 

 Tins is the introduction of a principle antago- 

 nist to that which underlies all republican sys- 

 tems. Our Union was made for the political 

 government of the parties to it, for certain 

 specified objects of a very general character, 

 all of them political, and none of them relating 

 to or affecting in any manner individual or per- 

 sonal interests in those things which touch the 

 domestic concerns. There is no feature or 

 principle of it giving to the Federal power au- 

 thority over them. These were reserved and 

 left exclusively to the jurisdiction of the States 

 and ' the people thereof.' Of this character 

 are the marital relations, the religious, beliefs, 

 the right of eminent domain within the terri- 

 torial limits of the States, other private prop- 

 erty, and all matters purely social. Slavery 

 where it exists is a system of domestic labor ; 

 it is not the creature of law. It existed with- 

 out law before this Government was establish- 

 ed. It is incorporated into the organization 

 of society as part of the existing domestic reg- 

 ulations. It cannot be brought within consti- 

 tutional jurisdiction any more than can any or 

 either of the other private and personal inter- 

 ests referred to." 



Mr. Higby, of California, replied : " Sir, the 

 whole debate on the other side of the House 

 upon this proposition has been upon the pre- 

 sumption that whatever action is taken by us 

 as a legislative body is conclusive ; that if this 

 resolution passes this House it having already 



