Gold Hill Daily News

IS THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT VOID?

[From the Sacramento Union of yesterday.]

It is time the people took note of the views promulgated as Democratic doctrine. They are aware that Casserly, Haight, Hendricks, and other Democratic leaders, here and elsewhere, have declared the Fourteenth Amendment to be unratified, and that the Fifteenth cannot be ratified at all in the manner prescribed by the Constitution. We have discussed the argument of Haight upon the subject, and, in reply, the Capital organ of the party lays down the principle: "It is simply impossible, under our form of Government, to deprive a State of a reserved right without that State's consent." That is to say, the National Constitution cannot be amended at all without a unanimous vote of the States. For the Constitution consists simply of grants of powers previously reserved to the States or to the people. Everything in it is either a grant or a reservation, and an amendment could be nothing more or less than a new grant or reservation. The first eleven amendments were express reservations of powers which it was found might otherwise have been implied to belong to the Federal Government. The Twelfth and Thirteenth Amendments were grants of new powers. No amendment can be anything but a grant or reservation of some power. The only object of a Constitution is to confer powers and define their nature. To guard against extreme changes it was provided that no amendment should be made without a three-fourths vote; and one change alone—that of depriving the States of equal representation in the Senate—was made subject to a unanimous vote. Yet Democratic statesmen have discovered that this exception is the rule, and that no new power whatever can be granted without unanimous vote. The three-fourths rule can have no application whatever in this view of the case; for the idea that an amendment can be made without conferring or recalling a power is inconsistent with the nature of a Constitution. Not dwelling, however, upon this general view of the subject, which shows the doctrine to be simply secessionism, it is plain that the Thirteenth Amendment is utterly void under this Democratic theory. That amendment certainly "deprives a State of a reserved right" to uphold slavery, and confers new power upon the Federal Government to "regulate" that "domestic" and "divine" institution. If Haight's theory is correct, therefore, slavery still exists in Maryland, Kentucky and Delaware, and may exist in any State. The "reserved right" to perpetuate and extend slavery can never be taken away unless every State consents. Unanimous consent to the Thirteenth Amendment has not been obtained—Kentucky and Delaware voted against it. Six Democratic Senators and fifty-six members of the House voted against its proposition, and five Democrats in the Senate and eight in the House shirked the vote. Only two Democratic Senators and sixteen Democratic Representatives could be found to sustain it. It was not a Democratic measure. The institution was sacred, even while its fangs were dripping with loyal blood. Now, we are informed that it is unconstitutional to amend the Constitution so as to get rid of slavery! Whither will such statesmanship and such constitutional interpretation take us? Is there anything dangerous to the country which it is not capable of reviving? Is either National Union, National credit or human liberty safe in its hands!