is submitted to the States, and it brings this war to a close, I will ever rejoice at the vote I have given; but if I am mistaken, I will remember it is not the first time.

Mr. Speaker, I desire above all things that the Democratic party be again placed in power. The condition of the country needs the wise counsel of the Democracy. The peace and prosperity of this once powerful and happy nation require it to be placed under Democratic rule. The history of the past demonstrates this. The question of slavery has been a fruitful theme for the opponents of the Democracy. It has breathed into existence fanaticism, and feeds it with such meat as to make it ponderous in growth. It must soon be strangled or the nation is lost. I propose to do this by removing from the political arena that which has given it life and strength. As soon as this is done fanaticism

"Writhes with pain, And dies among its worshipers."

Then the rays of truth will be unshaded, and once more our people will rejoice in the salvation of their country, and of the reinstating in power that party which made this country great, and which has done so much to secure to man civil and religious liberty.

The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks that these
are explanations of the pending measure.
Mr. ASHLEY. I yield to the gentleman from
New York.

Mr. MILLER, of Pennsylvania. I ask for
five minutes of the time of the gentleman from
New York,

Mr. HERRICK. I have no objection to give the gentleman five minutes of my time.

Mr. MILLER, of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that I would be permitted to close my short career upon this floor without claiming any of the time or attention of the House; but I feel that I owe it to more than two hundred and sixty thousand lovers of the country, friends of the Constitution as it is," in the State of Pennsylvania, to repudiate the sentiments and position of gentlemen, [Messrs. MCALLISTER and CorFROTH,] my colleagues here, who have been heard this morning.

I came here, sir, with no ambition save to do what I conceived to be my duty in the service of my constituents and the preservation of a pure and consistent record.

But I prefer to go back to my home, I choose to meet those who sent me here, and say that I have tried to do that, at least, which was exacted of me when I took the oath entitling me to Many of the honorable gentlemen of this House a seat upon this floor, that I would, to the extent with whom I am politically associated may conof my ability, preserve inviolate the Constitution demn me for my action to-day. I assure them I of the United States, in word and letter, as those do that only which my conscience sanctions and who made it gave it to us. I feel that I have not my sense of duty to my country demands. I have been derelict in the discharge of duty; that I have been a Democrat all the days of my life. I learned not forgotten what was due to myself and what my Democracy from that being who gave me was due to them. I have no argument to make birth; it was pure; it came from one who never in regard to what I conceive to be the merits of told me an untruth. All my political life has been the question before us. That ground has been spent in defending and supporting the measures fully and ably covered by those who have prewhich I thought were for the good of the party ceded me. I stand here to-day to indorse the senand the country. My energy, my means, and timents and arguments of my friend from Ohio, my time were all given for the success of the [Mr. PENDLETON,] I stand with him as to the Democratic cause. I am no Democrat by mere power of this House to pass this measure. profession, but I have always been a working able and eloquent arguments have not been anHis one. If by my action to-day I dig my political swered-nor, in my judgment, can they be-by grave, I will descend into it without a murmur, the ablest of those on the other side of the House. knowing that I am justified in my action by a conNow, sir, it strikes me that much as this matscientious belief I am doing what will ultimately ter has been discussed, no member has yet satisprove to be a service to my country, and know-factorily met the great question at the bottom of ing there is one dear, devoted, and loved being in this wide world who will not bring tears of bitterness to that grave, but will strew it with beautiful flowers, for it returns me to that domestic circle from whence I have been taken for the greater part of the last two years.

Knowing my duty I intend to perform it, relying upon the intelligence and honesty of the people I represent to do me justice. If this action shall be condemned by my people I will go back with pleasure to the enjoyment of private life, free from the exciting political arena; but no power on earth will prevent me from quietly depositing my ballot in behalf of the candidates of the Democratic party. I hope I will be granted the pleasure of reading the eloquent speeches made by my Democratic associates, and admire their rise and onward march to distinction. This boon I pray you not to take from me.

If, on the other hand, the course of the Democrats who will vote for this amendment will meet the approbation of the people, and we are greeted with the plaudit of" Well done, good and faithful servants," it will be the desire of our hearts to open our arms for your reception and shelter you as the hen shelters her brood, satisfied you were honest in your belief but mistaken in your opinions.

Mr. ASHLEY. I now yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from New York, [Mr. HERRICK.]

Mr. HARDING. I ask the gentleman to yield

to me for a moment.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, this is rather an arbitrary proceeding. One gentleman occupies the floor and farms it out to whoever he pleases. We have a Presiding Officer, and I prefer he shall assign the floor.

The SPEAKER. The Clerk will read the rule on the subject.

The Clerk read, as follows:

"While a member is occupying the floor he may yield it to another for explanation of the pending measure as well as for personal explanation."

Mr. JOHNSON, of Pennsylvania. Can these be called explanations relative to members?

this proposition. Abolish slavery, and no man
among them has pretended to show what we are
to do with the freedmen, except that, as good
Christians, it will become our duty to feed and
clothe them. The true philanthropists and tax
payers of the country are equally interested in
knowing what is to be done with the elephant
when we get him. We should not pull down the
old house until we have built the new one. I
say to my friends on the other side of the House
that for them to discuss the constitutionality of a

wrought great changes in the situation of the country affecting this important question, and I approach its discussion at this time with quite altered views, as to its expediency, from those which governed me when I last addressed the House upon the same subject. The brilliant successes that have rewarded the gallant efforts of the military and naval forces of the nation, and the result of the presidential election, which has since transpired, have necessarily exercised an important influence over the public mind in both the loyal and the insurgent States; and this question has assumed a very different aspect from that which it bore at the last session of Congress. The rejection by the people at the polls of the proclaimed policy of the Democratic party has closed many avenues to reconciliation which then remained open, and the waning strength of the rebellion has brought its leaders to the verge of desperation. Perils which then seemed imminent have faded away, and others of quite different tenor menace us in the future.

In such a period of transition, when tremendous events succeed one another with almost inconceivable rapidity, it is impossible for the legis lator to remain unaffected by the mighty changes that meet him on every side. It is weak, Mr. Speaker, it is criminal for him, from a false pride in preserving an imaginary consistency, to remain stationary when all the rest of the world is moving forward, and to regulate his words and actions by what he has said or done in the past. Change is the universal law of nature, pervading the world of mind as well as the world of matter. Ordinarily it effects its operation by almost imperceptible gradations, and their results only become visible at long intervals. But every generation sees further and more clearly than its predecessor that the radicalism of one century becomes the conservatism of the next, while steadily through the ages the eternal march of human advancement sweeps on. In such a period, however, as that in which our lot is cast, and in such a crisis as that now resting upon the country, when the whole fabric of society is convulsed by the fierce struggle between contending opinions, upon the issue of which depends the continued existence of the American Republic, if not, indeed, the fate of constitutional liberty throughout the world, this progress goes on with marvelous celerity, and the changes of a century are sometimes condensed into a single year.

Mr. Speaker, at the last session of Congress I
voted against this resolution from a solemn con-
viction of duty. And as I shall now vote for it
from a similar conviction, it becomes me to ex-
plain to the House and the country what consid-
erations prompt me to assume a new attitude upon
the question before us. Events which will now
govern my action have superseded the argu-
proposed amendment is a broad farce. They pro-
pose to amend that, the body of which, in every ments which influenced the vote I recorded last
essential, vital feature they have consistently vio- year. The considerations which then rendered
lated in the action of the President of the United the amendment proposed impolitic, in my view,
States, this House, and every subordinate depart-have ceased to operate, and reasons of great force,
nient and employé known to this Administration,
It would have been more creditable to the fair-
ness of the dominant party if they had proposed
to blot out the sovereignty of the States, and de-
clared that there are no reserved rights in the
Constitution which Congress and the President
cannot ignore with impunity.

If, Mr. Speaker, I could be induced to vote for ||
any amendatory proposition to the organic law of
all is chaos.
this land I would not do it at a time like this, when

The SPEAKER. The five minutes allotted to
the gentleman have expired.

Mr. MILLER, of Pennsylvania. I rose simply for the purpose of repudiating the sentiments and the positions assumed upon this floor by two of my colleagues from Pennsylvania, and have only to request my colleague [Mr. COFFROTH] to make his acknowledgments to my other venerable colleague [Mr. BAILY] to whose Quaker knocks he is doubtless indebted for his wonderful conversion. Mr. HERRICK. Mr. Speaker, the joint resolution now before the House submitting to the Legislatures of the several States an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, comes before us under circumstances widely different from those existing when at the last session of Congress the same resolution failed to receive the requisite two-thirds vote of this body.

The eventful year which has elapsed has

which were not then in existence, have arisen to make it now expedient, and to warrant me in reversing my former action.

In my humble judgment the rejection of this measure at that time was demanded by the best interests of the country, which now, on the contrary, seem to call for its adoption. Mr. Speaker, circumstances have changed, and I shall now vote for the resolution, as I formerly voted against it, because I think such action on my part is best calculated to assist in the maintenance of the Government, the preservation of the Union, and the perpetuation of the free institutions which we inherited from our fathers. These are the great objects for which the loyal people of this country have struggled during the last four years with a cour age and self-devotion to which history affords no parallel, and poured forth their blood and treasure with an unhesitating patriotism that has astonished the world. So long as a Representative seeks these objects, regardless of partisan or political prejudices, he cannot be rightfully charged with inconsistency, no matter how widely the means he may find it necessary to employ at one time or another, to adapt himself to ever-varying circumstances, may differ. I believe this is the only consistency that is truly desirable. It is certainly the only one to which I make any pre

tensions.

I have no doubt of the power to make this

amendment to the Constitution in the manner proposed. It is altogether immaterial, for the purposes of this discussion, whether the power of three fourths of the States to alter the organic law is altogether unlimited, except by the reservation in the amending clause of the Constitution. It may well be doubted whether the people do not possess certain inalienable rights, of which a minority, however small, cannot be divested by a majority, however large. But the States formed the Federal Government by a grant to it of their sovereignty over certain specified subjects, and it must seem to follow that they can also confer upon it any other rights or powers which they themselves possess, in the manner prescribed by the Constitution itself. By the adoption of that Constitution the States transferred to three fourths of their number their entire sovereignty, which can be at any time exerted to augment or diminish the functions of the General Government, save in the two particulars excepted by special limitation. Three fourths of the States can, by an amendment of the Constitution, exercise throughout the United States any power that a State individually can exercise within its own limits.

The institution of slavery is purely a creation of law, and completely under the control of the State in which it may exist, at whose pleasure it may be modified or abolished. What the State may do, the higher power to which by the adoption of the Constitution the State voluntarily ceded its whole sovereignty, except in two particulars, is certainly competent to do, whenever it chooses to assert its authority. In amending the Constitution, three fourths of the States actually represent the whole; and the agent is invested with all the powers that belong to his principal.

That this was the view entertained by the founders of our Government is conclusively established by the fact that a proviso, declaring that "no State shall, without its consent, be affected in its internal police," was defeated in the Convention which framed the Constitution by a decisive majority. The power thus acknowledged was never disputed from that day until the aboli; tion of slavery by a constitutional amendment became a practical question in the politics of the country. I have never entertained a doubt of the existence of this power, and I am now convinced that the time has arrived when it is expedient to exercise it in consummating the amendment proposed in the resolution now under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I never had any love for the institution of slavery. I always regarded it as a moral, social, and political evil, and a fruitful curse to any community in which it might exist.

In

this sentiment I believe that I fairly represent the views of the great bulk of the Democratic party of the northern States. That party has never been either pro-slavery or anti-slavery; but it has ever been devoted to the Union and the Constitution, and always consistent in the position that the Federal Government had no right to interfere either for or against the institution, except to fulfill the duty in regard to the return of fugitive slaves imposed upon it by the Constitution. Democrats of the school in which I was educated believed, and believe now, that under the Constitution as it exists, every State has the exclusive control of the subject within its limits, and that the Federal power can neither abolish it in a State nor prohibit it in a Territory. The contrary doctrine we regard as repugnant to the very theory of the Government and inimical to its peace and safety; and Democratic statesmen clearly foresaw and predicted that the ascendency of an anti-slavery party in the North and in the Government would provoke an armed collision between the northern and southern States of the Union. The Democracy cared nothing for slavery. Its preservation or destruction was with them a subordinate consideration in comparison with the stability of the Government, the supremacy of the Constitution, and the integrity of the Union; and they accordingly exerted their utmost power to keep the irritating subject out of party politics, and thus to avoid the terrible catastrophe which its agitation has brought upon the country. As a party they did all they could to prevent the war in which we are now engaged, and no portion of the responsibility for it rests upon the shoulders of the northern Democracy. They warmly supported the "Crittenden compromise," and were perfectly willing to give to

the South any additional constitutional guaran-
tees that might be requisite for the future security
of their "peculiar institution."

when Missouri applied for admission into the Union. There was therefore no conflict of opinion between the two parties as to the power to amend the Constitution in regard to the institution of slavery. Stripped of all side issues the main question presented to the people for their decision was whether slavery should be abolished and the seceded States coerced into allegiance to the Conwhether the war should be speedily terminated and the aegis of the Constitution thrown around the social system of the South. The people by a large majority sustained the first proposition and fully indorsed the policy of the Administration on the slavery issue, and I am now disposed to bow in submission to that popular decree.

For the sake of the Union the Democratic party of the North would have cheerfully acquiesced in amendments to the Constitution explicitly acknowledging the right of citizens of the slaveholding States to carry their slaves into the Territories and hold them there until the new States,stitution, as it is now proposed to amend it, or upon their admission to the Union, should declare for themselves whether they would have the institution or not. For the sake of peace and the Union they would gladly have voted for the then proposed amendment providing that the Constitution should never be changed so as to destroy or weaken slavery in the States where it then existed. Had their views prevailed, and governed the action of the Administration, all the blood that has been shed and all the money that has been expended, North and South, during the last four years, would have been saved, and the country would have gone on uninterruptedly in her marvelous career of prosperity and power. But the voice of Democratic wisdom was disregarded; men of extreme opinions controlled both sections, and a civil war ensued, of which the end is not yet the South fighting for secession, and consequently the perpetuation of slavery, and the North for the Union, and incidentally for the abolition of slavery.

The Democratic party, while sustaining the Government, believed that the interests of the country, of humanity, and of the cause of liberty would be best consulted in a peace, in which both parties must give up something for the sake of agreement. They believed that there was no impassable gulf between the North and the South which should prevent them from coming together again under the same Government, and that the issue of slavery might be of the greatest importance in any negotiation which might be undertaken to restore peace and reëstablish a perfect Union. They thought that both of the combatants, weary of the carnage and devastation that were desolating the land, and taught by dearlybought experience to respect the bravery and determination of each other, would gladly consent to a peace upon the basis of mutual concessionthe South surrendering its project of a separate nationality and the North its hostility to the institution of negro slavery.

These were the views which prevailed in the Democratic party a year ago, and made it then practically a unit in opposition to the measure now before the House proposing the abolition of slavery by an amendment of the Constitution, in accordance with its own provisions. As a lifelong member of that time-honored political organization, whose history is the history of the Government in its proudest days, and whose policy, carried out by a long line of wise and patriotic statesmen, made this country what it was four years ago, I raised my voice and recorded my vote as a member of this House against the joint resolution now under consideration.

I have no doubt, however, that if the popular verdict upon this momentous question had been different from what it was, we should now be in sight of the blessed haven of peace, for I am fully persuaded that the olive-branch held out in the election of the distinguished and patriotic citizen and soldier who was nominated at Chicago, and the indorsement by the northern people of the principles enunciated by the Democratic party, would have been hailed with joy by our fellowcountrymen of the South as the harbinger of an honorable and a lasting peace. The ablest men of the whole country would have come together in a spirit of mutual concession and compromise and resettled the foundations of the Government so firmly that the superstructure might defy the wind and the storm for ages yet unborn.

But this was not to be. The anti-slavery sentiment proved predominant. The candidates of the Democratic party for President and Vice President were defeated, and a Congress elected which is certain to adopt the resolution now under consideration unless we anticipate their action. The question is settled by a popular verdict, which I am not disposed to further resist. So far as the national Government is concerned, slavery is no longer a political issue. We cannot influence its fate, which now depends upon the action of the States in their individual capacity. And released from all party ties which formerly bound them to it, but which now belong to a past state of things, the Representatives of the Democratic party in this House are left free to act upon the question pending as in their estimation, individually, will best promote the restoration of the Union, and preserve our free Government. For my part, I shall vote for the resolution, because, under existing circumstances, I think its immediate adoption will in a great degree tend to secure those objects nearer than all others to every patriotic heart.

Now, and for the next two years at least, the Democratic party is, and must be, powerless in the nation. It may embarrass, but it cannot change, the policy of the Administration. For good or for evil, the Administration now in power will wield the functions and control the destinies of the Government. It may end the war and restore the Union. At all events its opponents cannot. Such being the case, I am unable to reconcile it to my ideas of duty to stand between it and the people. The Administration desires now to submit this amendment to the States, and, in my judgment, a Democrat may consent to this submission simply from a desire to allow its policy a fair opportunity with the people, while holding himself at perfect liberty to advocate or oppose the amendment in his own State, as circumstances may seem to require. Sir, if this were an absolute enactment to abolish slavery by legislation, in defiance of the constitutional provision that the States shall have exclusive control of their local institutions, a widely different question would be presented from that which is involved in the measure now pend

The tone of the public mind at that time seemed to me, as it no doubt seemed to all who agreed in opinion with me, to foreshadow a change of Administration and the accession to power of the Democratic party, which we believed would be able to check the red tide of war and induce the South to return to the Union, by showing a conciliatory spirit and giving it the fullest assurance that all its rights and privileges under the Constitution, as it exists, should be preserved, and their continued enjoyment of them for the future guarantied by such constitutional changes as might be requisite to effect that object. The two parties into which the people were divided prepared for the presidential election with a distinctly-under-ing. As, however, it is but a preliminary measure stood issue. The party of the Administration incorporated this amendment in the platform of principles upon which they entered the canvass. The Opposition boldly declared for a cessation of hostilities and a national convention to redress all grievances, settle all difficulties, and make an honorable and lasting peace by a satisfactory compromise. It was well understood that the principal business of this contemplated national convention, should it ever assemble, would be to put at rest, at once and forever, by the agency of amendments to the Constitution, the vexed question of slavery, which has disturbed the harmony of the country ever since its agitation was commenced,

to enable the people to practically reach and legally pass judgment upon an important issue which has agitated the country ever since the formation of the Union, I am unable to discover any violation of the great principles of the political party with which I have been identified through all my past life, in recording my vote in favor of its passage. I am willing to accord to my constituents the privilege I enjoy, as their Representative, of personally passing upon this measure. It may be, sir, that the adoption of this resolution, at this particular time, will be productive of beneficial results to the national cause, while it can certainly do no harm, since, in the event of its failure in this Con

Mr. BROWN, of Wisconsin. It is not my intention to discuss the measure now pending before the House, but simply to give a résumé of the reasons which must determine my own course. This, upon a matter of so great importance and involving differences of opinion so wide, is due both to myself and to my constituents.

same blessings, long after my mortal frame shall part of the Constitution. The power of determ-
have moldered into dust, is dearer to me thanining what is or is not an amendment rests with
friends or party or political position. Firm in Congress and three fourths of the States; they,
the consciousness of right, I know that posterity
on their consciences and oaths, say that any pro-
will do me justice, and feel that no descendant of vision is an amendment, and nowhere is there a
mine will ever blush at the sight of the page on power, except by revolution, which can hold that
which my vote is recorded in favor of country, determination wrong. The Supreme Court can-
Government, liberty, and progress.
not, because the very existence of that court is,
beyond question, within the power of amend-
ment. Congress and the three fourths of the
States are therefore the final judges as well of what
is an amendment, or the removal of a defect, as of
the propriety of making it a part of the Constitu-
tion. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Cox] is
therefore right in saying that the power of amend-
ment extends even to creating a king. But this
is only because our decision, supported by three
fourths of the States, is final, and if we are false
to our oaths there is no review. But I hold that
if, upon a desert island where there is no civil
government, one man kills another, he is not the
less a murderer because there is no power to pun-
ish. And in our case, the fact that we are to act
as judges as well as legislators only increases the
responsibility of observing strictly the spirit and
object of the Constitution.

The amendment of the Constitution abolishing slavery can be made effective in the rebellious States only by arms. But the President has already by proclamation declared those slaves free, and asserted his intention to use our armies to enforce it. The President has four years in which to try this experiment, with the unlimited control of the resources of the nation during that period; the amendment could not hasten military operations or take from the power of his master a single slave. It is therefore, for the purpose of abolishing slavery, without practical effect unless the President should recede from his declared intention of enforcing his proclamation.

It is mischievous in so far as it would tie the hands of the President in so regulating the mode of abolishing slavery as not to precipitate upon the country three million ignorant and debased negroes, without the slightest preparation for liberty, or power on the part of Government, by a system of apprenticeship or otherwise, to require them to labor.

It removes all inducement on the part of southerners to resist in the last instance the proposition of Davis to free and arm the southern slaves and turn them against our northern armies and people.

With that proposition slavery is a weapon in our hands and for our benefit. The slaveholders, between the hostile action of the two opposing parties, will be glad to save any portion of their rights; they will, when Davis undertakes to enforce his desperate policy, be only too willing to assent to an abolition as rapid as the interests either of the country at large or of the negroes themselves will permit,

It reserves no power, in case experience should demonstrate great evils in the intermixture of large masses of the black and white races, to guard by colonization against such evils.

It utterly ignores the greatest evil of slavery; extends through generations its effect in completely debasing the subject of it and making him unfit either to be a good citizen or a good man.

deemed possible. We are therefore on our oaths to declare that interference with an institution local in its character is not merely an addition to the powers of the General Government as a destruction of the local powers of the States, but is a matter necessary to the general weal of all parts of the country. I cannot so hold, and am less inclined so to hold because there is no tribunal to review our decision. I am not now and never have been an apologist for slavery. I have never believed that it could be a permanent institution; the seeds of death were in its nature. Had I lived in Maryland I should have voted to abolish slavery; I should so have voted in Missouri; I would so vote in Kentucky. Their material interests will undoubtedly be advanced by such abolition; but it is still a question reserved under the Constitution for their own people.

This is, however, not even a question of the practical abolition of slavery. There are causes at work, which in any event will destroy it; the progress of our armies is wasting it; even a recognition of the confederacy would not save it from its final doom. The rebels have themselves challenged for their favorite institution the attention and hostility of the world; they have placed it in the front rank, where every blow dealt by our soldiers at rebellion strikes it with destructive force.

Thousands of the most intelligent have already escaped; new ideas as to liberty (a word hitherto unknown to them) have through intermingling with our soldiers been scattered among them; the patient drudge of former times (who then scarce knew that he had a soul) will soon inquire into the reason why his bone and sinews are the property of another; the wealth of the southerner in slavery, if it cannot take to itself wings, will at least take to itself legs and disappear.

The Supreme Court of the United States, in sustaining the validity of the United States Bank, put their decision on the ground that the decision of Congress in declaring it necessary as a fiscal agent of Government could not be reviewed. It was true, as a part of the current history of the period, that its fiscal agency had little influence upon its creation, and that its general financial || power and the regulation of exchanges were the chief objects it accomplished; but Congress decided otherwise, and an institution at war with the real spirit of our Government was preserved. Our present banking law, if (as I do not believe) it should finally be sustained by the highest tribunals, must be sustained on the ground of the decision of Congress that it was the fiscal agent of Government, or necessary as a part of its financial system, although the majority of us, and doubtless the courts themselves, believe that it was a scheme to enable overgrown moneyed cap-charge; nowhere have they used in the Constituitalists to increase their gains from the necessities of the country, and to escape from their share of State taxation, (necessary to sustain the war,) and throw the whole burden upon the poorer classes, real estate owners, laboring and business men. It is therefore as judges that we are to say that the proposition before the House is an amendment within the spirit of the Constitution.

An amendment implies the removal of a defect or an improvement upon the Constitution; it is necessarily consistent with and not destructive of the Constitution in its true spirit. It is to the fabric of government very nearly what "repair" is to a bunding. There is probably no lawyer in this House who has not been employed in cases

It violates that good faith which all civilized Governments have hitherto observed, by destroying valuable rights hitherto acknowledged as prop-involving the distinction between a new erection erty, and yet refusing compensation.

England, in emancipating the slaves on her islands, not only established a system of apprenticeship, but compensated those who lost. It is no answer that slavery is immoral; individuals, upon the faith of laws which recognized rights in negro labor, have invested their property in such rights. When the Government sees fit to change its policy and destroy the rights, it owes compensation. Of course compensation is due only to loyal owners.

It is a dangerous abuse of the power of amendment conferred by the Constitution.

I agree with neither of the gentlemen who have argued the constitutional effect of such an amendment. I draw a distinction between the right to make such an amendment and the power to make it. The right affects the consciences of those authorized to act, the power the consequences of the act when complete. In most of our States, by constitutional enactment, no person can twice be put in jeopardy for the same offense; the verdict of a jury, therefore, acquitting a criminal is not susceptible of a review; no matter how corrupt or how much in violation of law, it is final and conclusive. They have, therefore, power to disregard the instructions of the judge on points of law and acquit an acknowledged criminal, but they have no such right, and it would be a violation of conscience and of their highest duty. Amendments proposed by two thirds of Congress and ratified by three fourths of the States become

and repairs. It is almost impossible to give any
general definition by which, in every case, the
distinction between the two can be determined;
but almost every one in ordinary cases can feel
that distinction. The power given is to amend,
and an amendment must be consistent with the
fabric, improving portions of it. Here again I
must illustrate, by reference to ordinary life, an-
other distinction.

I have said that the word amendment in the
fabric of the Constitution answers very nearly to
"repair" as applied to buildings, but addition is
very different from either repair or amendment.
The owner of a house is discontented with its ex-
tent; he adds a library-room, a dining-room, or a
kitchen; this is no repair; nor would any ad-
dition in substance to the powers of the General
Government or any destruction of the powers of
the State be an amendment. Still I concede that
amendment has a somewhat more extensive sig-
nification than repair, and that it would not be
always safe to resort to the analogy.

The Constitution in its true spirit delegated certain powers of general interest in every State to the General Government; in no instance did it seek to interfere with the merely local interests or institutions of any State. Indeed, any such interference would be entirely inconsistent with the declaration of the Constitution itself as to its objects. I do not believe that any one State voting for the Constitution would have done so had any such exercise of the power of amendment been

Nor am I altogether indifferent to the effects upon national character of such an amendment. It is a declaration upon our part that slavery is not merely a local institution, but a national sin, sustained and upheld by the Constitution. Our fathers carefully avoided the possibility of this

tion the word slave. In providing for their surrender it uses the words "persons held to service or labor;" in depriving the South of full representation for slaves, it requires an enumeration of free persons, &c., and three fourths of all others. So careful were they to avoid a recognition in any way of slavery! We might fairly change these two provisions; but to ingraft upon the Constitution a provision abolishing slavery, is to declare upon our oaths that slavery was connected with the purposes and object of the Constitution, and belonged to the North as well as to the South.

But while for the reasons stated I cannot vote for the amendment, I have been extremely doubtful whether I ought to vote against it. I recognize the absolute fealty due from a member of Congress to the interests of his country and his constituents. Not only is it his duty, as a matter of conscience, not to vote for a bad measure, but he is bound, when he cannot defeat bad legislation, not to increase the evil by useless opposition. We all know that in the next Congress there is a majority of extreme men. They will, without regard to the effect of this measure upon the country, pass it. And whatever may be the personal wishes of the President, he is so committed to the radicals on this question that he must call a special session of Congress. A session of Congress unsettles all the business interests of the country. No man seeking legitimate profits can know what course to pursue. Some new freak of legislation may tax him into bankruptcy, or so depreciate the currency as to effect the same result. Better a pestilence than a session of Congress, so far as business is concerned. If a session is pernicious to the business interests, it is ten times more so to our armies. Each day politicians throw stumbling-blocks in their path. It was only yesterday that this House passed a resolution impliedly censuring the most successful general of the war-a complete soldier in his plans, a hero in the field, a statesman in council. I mean General Sherman.

If, then, there is no hope of great advantage by the mere delay of this measure, it is the duty of those opposed to it not to vote.

But is it not of the greatest consequence to relieve our armies, even for a short time, of this bur

den which we are attempting to put upon their shoulders? Grant, Thomas, and Sherman, in despite of both rebels and radicals, may, if we delay this blow at them, succeed in a few months in overthrowing the rebellion. I have stated that, so far as slavery is concerned, I consider this question as one involving simply the difference between a healthful process of emancipation and one injurious alike to the negro and the country. But that is certainly a mere matter of opinion, and gentlemen honestly believing in emancipation may well ask for a security. I have, to avoid this doubt, drawn a substitute for the amend

ment, which obviates the greater part of the prac only the question of abuse of power. I ask that it may be read, as at the proper time I intend to offer it.

The amendment was read, as follows:

SEC. 1. Hereafter every sale, transfer, or assignment of the right of one person to the service or labor of another, shall be void; and by the mere fact of the consent of the owner to such sale, assignment, or transfer, the person owing service or labor shall be released from all such obligation and become free.

SEC. 2. All females, such as are usually termed slaves, owing service or labor to others, are hereby released from such obligation, and are and shall be wholly free.

SEC. 3. From and after the 1st day of January, A. D. 1880, slavery, and all involuntary service, except that arising from the relations of parent and child, master and apprentice, guardian and ward, or that imposed as a punishinent for crimne, are and shall be abolished.

SEC. 4. Congress shall by law provide compensation for the actual and direct damage or loss sustained through the operation of this law, by loyal citizens of the United States.

been averted had we rendered a more cheerful, a
more implicit obedience to that instrument. In-
stead of squaring the Constitution to suit our no-
tions, we would do better to make our opinions
conform to the Constitution. All our misfortunes
are, to my mind, clearly traceable to a disregard
of its provisions. I can understand those who
have never loved the Constitution in the past
eager to tinker it now, and if you show me a
man who has been noted in the past for disloy-
alty to the Constitution, and for his disregard for
the Union which it made possible, I will show
you a man in favor of this amendment. The
party to which I belong have looked ever to the
the chart by which they directed the course of the
ship of State in the better days when the vessel
was under their guidance. The chart has been
discarded by others; the ship is among the break-
ers; storms, dark and menacing, shut out the sky.
In such an hour, instead of trying to amend the
chart, I am for following it, and I doubt not, if
we do, but that there is still a pleasant voyage
before us, and a haven of safety at the end of it,
in which the old ship may lie in security and at
peace.

I am told, Mr. Speaker, that if I desire to save
the Democratic party I will help to amend the
Constitution so as to abolish slavery; I must try
to cut it loose, so it is said, from dead issues.
Singularly enough, sir, this advice comes from
men who have spent their lives in misrepresent-
ing the Democratic party and in vilifying its lead-
ers. These men have become very suddenly so-
licitous for the welfare of the Democracy. They
tell us, sir, there is a great future in store for us,
if we Democrats only follow their advice. I am

Mr. BROWN, of Wisconsin. It will be perceived that it immediately obviates the worst objections to negro slavery, and yet presents inducements for the rebels to return to their alle-suspicious of this new-born zeal for the interest of giance. It is much better for them than Davis's proposition to free and arm the slaves, and therefore may defeat that measure.

It prevents an industrial revolution which, destroying the South, will utterly forbid the idea of aid from that quarter in paying the interest on our public debt.

If this substitute is accepted, while I cannot directly vote for it, as being an abuse of power, I shall not vote against it, and I am well assured that there are others on the Democratic side who will either directly or indirectly support it; so that the measure will pass the House. It is for gentlemen on the other side to say whether they urged this in good faith, or as politicians; if in the first view, they will accept the substitute; if in the last, reject it.

Mr. HARDING addressed the House. [His remarks will be published in the Appendix.]

||

of human blood shed for immediate as against gradual emancipation, among such men I do not desire to be numbered.

It is not many months since the President of the United States, above his own signature, publicly stated that if he could save the Union he would do so, irrespective of slavery. 1 am for leaving open to him the opportunity of redeeming the pledge thus given to the country. Since that time the President, in his famous note addressed" to all whom it may concern," insisted upon the abolition of slavery as a preliminary to peace. The position taken in that document was so generally condemned that even the editor of of the man who wrote it. We now propose to commit the country to a policy which everybody condemned but a few months ago. Sir, I, for one, cannot give my vote to do it. The proclamation of emancipation was all but universally condemned by the true friends of the Union. I believed it to be at once impolitic and illegal, and yet I am asked to give my assent now to legalize a policy which I cannot approve of, either in the President or in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I desire to save the party in power from itself, and I tell its leaders here that they had better never have been born than live to see the day when their experiments in legislation, of which this amendment is one, may be the chief obstacle in the way of the realization of that most dear to the truly loyal American heart-the restoration of the Union.

While I have argued, sir, against this measure as if it were in truth an "amendment" to the Constitution, I regard it as subversive of the entire spirit of that instrument. We have been warned by the "Father of his country" to disthe Democratic party coming from such a source. countenance irregular opposition to the Constitu1 for one have not learned Democracy from its tion, "and at the same time to resist with care the most inveterate foes, and I will not place myself spirit of innovation upon its principles, however speunder their instruction now. I cannot but be- cious the pretexts." One method of assault, he tells lieve that my immediate colleague has been giv- us, sir," may be to effect in the forms of the Coning too much importance to this new school of stitution alterations which will impair the energy Democratic advisers. I am afraid, sir, he is re- of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot peating second-hand the charge that the Demo-be directly overthrown." These, sir, are words of cratic party had been always subservient to the South, and found its subserviency followed by increased exactions in the interest of slavery. I owe it to my own self-respect as a Democrat, I owe it to my party, to say that this charge is entirely unfounded. When the South asked what the Constitution gave her we cheerfully yielded that; we as Democrats could not do less, and we never did more. My colleague again says that he has an especial enmity against the South as a Democrat, because the South abandoned the Democratic party. Well, sir, here the South committed for herself and for all of us a very sad mistake, as all who purpose to follow the bad example will; but I cannot believe that the spirit of revenge and recrimination which such remarks as these indicate is that which should be indulged. in by those who are intrusted with the grave re

this body. Not only the South, but a majority of
the people of the North, have abandoned, tempo-
rarily, the Democratic party; and sir, the majority
of both sections have traveled further, and I be-
lieve have fared worse.

Mr. Speaker, since I entered this House I have
endeavored to shape my conduct to the end that no
word or act of mine would stand in the way of the
restoration of peace and Union to these States.
I believe the legislation of the country should be

Mr. KALBFLEISCH. Mr. Speaker, the argument upon the question now before the House has been so ably conducted and so long continued that it is with more or less reluctance I venture to delay the public business by stating even briefly the reasons which induce me to dissent from a majority of my fellow-members, and to cast my vote, as I propose to do, to maintain the Consti-sponsibility which devolves on the members of tution as it is and as it was when our country, governed under it, was marching with proud and stately step to empire and to greatness. I am not sure, sir, that I would trespass at all upon the House at this stage of its proceedings upon this question if it were not for the fact that my immediate associate, speaking for a constituency closely connected with that which I have the honor to represent, sees the line of his duty in a different direction from that which I propose to take. Though what I have to say may not in-shaped in the spirit by which, I believe, I have fluence the vote of any member who hears me, still, sir, I believe the people of the great city in whose behalf I have the honor in part to speak on this floor would not be fairly represented in the national councils if I did not in the name, and I believe with the approval, of a large majority of them state here that their faith in the Constitution as it is and as it was when they required of me the promise to faithfully maintain it, is not im-selves upon will form the chief obstacle in the paired by anything which has since transpired, but that, on the contrary, they cling to it still as their fathers did before them as to the sheetanchor of their safety.

Mr. Speaker, I have watched the course of events to little purpose if the troubles which now surround us are in any degree due to imperfections in the Constitution; on the contrary, sir, I am mistaken if these troubles might not have

prophetic warning. Under" SPECIOUS PRETEXTS" of amending the Constitution, you desire to make it the instrument of depriving men of vested rights, and to leave behind you a precedent which, if followed, will leave every right, civil or religious, which the minority possesses at the will of the majority. When the Constitution went into operation there were twelve slave States and but one free State. It was within the power of the twelve slave States to force slavery on Massachusetts, in the same way that you propose to force abolition on the South. Would Massachusetts, think you, have submitted to so gross a perversion of the compact she had just entered into? Did she fight against England for seven years for the right to manage her own affairs only to transfer that right to another authority against which she had no legal safeguard? Sir, Massachusetts might have been left a wilderness, but this right could not have been wrested from her people. Do you propose to force from South Carolina, men of Massachusetts, what you would have yielded yourselves only with your lives?

We are told, sir, and the fact seems to be conceded by a vast majority of those in favor of this measure, that slavery is dead. The progress of the war and the incidents connected with it, we are told, have destroyed the institution in this country, and placed it beyond the hope of resurrection. Why then do we find gentlemen, and especially those most clamorous in insisting that slavery is dead, so urgent and pertinacious in seeking to lay sacrilegious hands upon that ven

been actuated. In my opinion the amendment
you now propose to provide for may stand in the
way of both peace and Union. Even while this
measure is under discussion messengers are pass-erated and almost sacred instrument, our glorious
ing between Washington and Richmond, and if
these men are successful, and if the negotiations
they propose to inaugurate result in anything, the
very question we now propose to commit our-

Constitution, under the pretense that alteration of it is necessary for the abolition of slavery? Has not its abolition been proclaimed by the President? Nay, further, does not the President demand as a condition precedent to the restoration of peace, and in fact as the only terms upon which he will consent to a restoration of the Union, that the States in rebellion shall themselves abolish slavery? In the face of all this, how can his po

way of a settlement of our difficulties. Suppose,
sir, that the South should be willing, as the basis
of peace, to consent to gradual emancipation?
Should we place ourselves in a position that would
prevent the acceptance of such terms? The amend-litical supporters now deny that the destruction
ment you now propose to make will then stand
as the only obstacle in the way of peace. If there
be men here willing to risk the life of the nation
on the hazard of battle, and willing to see rivers

of slavery is demanded at our hands? Taking these gentlemen at their words, Mr. Speaker, and there is no necessity for any change in the Constitution to secure the abolition of slavery. What,