in its height, for the President's special message on the situation was not sent to Congress until a week later; and second, Georgia's own troubles with the Federal judiciary over the Indian land question. Nothing, however, came of the application; it was simply received and tabled. In 1864 Mr. Davis proposed, as one of the series of amendments to be submitted to a convention of the States, an article which provided that "in giving construction to the Constitution," in regard to "all rights, liberties, or privileges assured by it to the people, or powers reserved to the States, and all denial, restriction, or limitation of powers to the United States, the Federal Government, or any of its officers," this rule shall be inflexibly adhered to, namely, "that its particular or express language shall not be abrogated, impaired, or in any way affected by any of its general language or provision, or by any implications resulting from it."2 84. PERFORMANCE OF NATIONAL FUNCTIONS BY THE STATES. The extreme jealousy with which the rights of the States were guarded can be seen by the character of an amendment proposed by the ratifying convention of South Carolina. This amendment declared that "Whereas it is essential to the pres ervation of the rights reserved to the several States, and the freedom of the people under the operation of a general government, that the right of prescribing the manner, time, and place of holding the election to the Federal Legislature should be forever inseparably annexed to the sovereignty of the sev eral States: This convention doth declare that the same ought to remain, to all posterity, a perpetual and fundamental right in the local government, exclusive of the interference of the General Government, except in cases where the legislature of the States shall refuse or neglect to perform and fulfill the same according to the terms of the said Constitution."3 It was not until 1860 that there was presented another amendment that can be properly classified under this head. Mr. Hindman of Arkansas included in the series of amend. ments introduced by him on the 12th of December, as a solu tion of the question of the hour, an article which stipulated that "all Federal officers exercising their functions within the 1 See ante, par. 77. App., No. 1039p. For other articles of this series, see post, par. 103. limits of the States" shall be appointed by State authority.' But this proposition came to naught; like all the others presented at this time it failed to meet the difficulty. In 1865 two resolutions were proposed to amend the ninth section of the first article which has reference to the powers denied the United States Government. In what particulars can not be stated, for, unfortunately, the text is not given, but probably they contemplated extending the power of the central Government. A proposition the converse of that brought forward by South Carolina was prepared by Mr. Hibbard of New Hampshire, December 9, 1872. It authorized Congress to fix a uniform day for holding State elections.3 This amendment was probably suggested by a sense of the desirableness of such a change, and by the belief that it could not be secured without a constitutional requirement. The States have, however, gradually come to adopt for their election the day set by Congress for the national elections. There are still several exceptions.1 85. GUARANTY OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT. In addition to the guaranty contained in the Constitution, the ratifying convention of Rhode Island recommended as an amendment that "the United States shall guarantee to each State its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by the Constitution expressly delegated to the United States."5 Rhode Island had been led to ratify the Constitution in part by the apprehension that the threat which had been made to divide her territory among her neighbors might be carried into effect. Now that she had joined the Union, she naturally desired a constitutional guaranty that her integrity should be maintained, for she fully realized that as the smallest of the States of the Union, she was practically helpless against her larger and more powerful sisters. No other amendment of a similar character appears to have been presented until ninety years later. In 1880 Mr. Acklen of Louisiana proposed an amendment guaranteeing not App., No. 811. 2 Mr. Stevens of Pennsylvania, App., No. 1042, and Mr. Benjamin of Missouri, App., No. 1062. 3 App., No. 1355. No. 1514 also provided that the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in each year for the Presidential election should be fixed for the election for President and Vice-President, members of Congress, and State and county officers. 4 Notably Vermont, Rhode Island, Oregon, Arkansas, Florida, and Georgia. only the integrity of the Union, but also the right of the States to "enforce their own local laws for their individual government by and through their own self chosen and elected representatives and officials," without interference by the Federal Government. This was intended to check the growing tendency toward centralization.2 There have been two resolutions-the one to explain, the other to extend the power conferred upon the Federal Government by Article IV, section 4, of the Constitution, which provides that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion, and, on application of the legisalature, or of the executive (when the legislature can not be convened), against domestic violence." The first of these was presented by Mr. Florence of Pennsylvania, in 1861.3 One of the series of articles introduced by him at this time declared that the regulation of slavery within its limits was exclusively the right of each State, and that the Constitution shall never be altered or amended to impair this right of each State without its consent; it, however, stipulated that this article shall not be construed to absolve the United States Government from rendering assistance to suppress insurrection or domestic violence, as provided in the Constitution. This proviso was doubtless suggested to meet the case of a State calling upon the officers of the General Government to assist in quelling a slave insurrection; otherwise they might refuse to render assistance on the ground that the regulation of slavery was exclusively the right of each State. The second resolution, proposed by Mr. Drake of Missouri, in 1870, authorized the United States to protect "each State against domestic violence whenever it shall be shown to the 1 App., No. 1509. 2 The preamble to this resolution declares that the "growing tendency to the central. ization of power in the Federal Government has awakened throughout the country a just fear that in the near future the perpetuity of this Union may again be imperiled by internal commotion," etc., "thereby wrecking the peace and prosperity of the Republic and breaking down the doctrines of perpetual union of the States finally and fully settled by the war, as well as infringing upon that home rule of the States guaranteed by the Con stitution." The right of local self-government belonging to the people of each State is, in eleven of the older States, declared a constitutional right which the National Government can never infringe, viz, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Vermont, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, Missouri, Texas, Colorado, and Georgia. Stimson, American Statute Law, par. 193. 3 App., No. 878. President, in such such manner as Congress may by law prescribe, that such violence exists in such State." This amend ment was prompted by a desire to give Congress constitutional authority for using force in the Southern States to put down the Kluklux Klan and other similar organizations which were terrorizing the negro, knowing full well that the State governments, as provided in the Constitution, would not call on the National Government for assistance, as the party in power in the most of these was politically opposed to the negro.2 86. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SECESSION. Remembering the frequently repeated argument of 1860-61, that the case of the rebellion of a State had not been foreseen by the framers of the Constitution, it is interesting to observe an amendment proposed by the ratifying convention of North Carolina; it provided that "Congress should not declare any State to be in rebellion without the consent of at least twothirds of all the members present in both Houses."3 Not until the period just previous to the civil war were any further amendments relative to the secession of a State introduced in Congress, but among the numerous propositions presented during the second session of the Thirty-sixth Congress were several upon the subject which was then uppermost in the public mind. December 17, 1860, three days before the ordinance of secession was passed by the South Carolina convention, Mr. Sickles of New York presented a resolution to amend the Constitution, providing that "Whenever a convention of delegates, chosen in any State by the people thereof under the recommendation of its legislature, shall rescind and annul its ratification of the Constitution, the President shall nominate and, by and with the advice of the Senate, shall appoint commissioners, not exceeding three, to confer with the duly appointed agents of such State, and to agree upon the disposition of the public property of the United States lying within such State, and upon the proportion of the public debt to be assumed and paid by such State; and upon the approval of the settlement agreed upon by the President and its ratifi 1App., No. 1328. 2 The resolution was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, who subsequently reported it adversely. 3 App., No. 89. For sketch of secession movements, see Foster, Com. on the Const., secs. 31, 36. cation by two-thirds of the Senate present, the President shall forthwith issue his proclamation declaring the assent of the United States to the withdrawal of such State from the Union." In the following February, Mr. Vallandigham of Ohio, in connection with his well-known proposition for the division of the Union into four sections, by which division the slave States practically formed one section, proposed an article forbidding the secession of a State without the consent of the legislatures of all the States of the section to which the State proposing to secede belongs, and empowering the President "to adjust with seceding States all questions arising because of their secession; but the terms of adjustment shall be submitted to the Congress for their approval before the same shall be valid."2 87. LIMITATION ON SECESSION. The above amendments were manifestly intended to facilitate the peaceful secession of the Southern States. In the same session three other amendments were presented either to restrict or to absolutely prohibit such action. The one introduced by Mr. Florence of Pennsylvania, January 28, 1861, as one of his series of compromise amendments, provided that "No State, or the people thereof, shall retire from the Union without the consent of three-fourths of the States."3 This was referred to the Select Committee on the Condition of the Country. Two weeks later Mr. Ferry of Connecticut proposed a resolution instructing the Committee on the Judiciary "to inquire into the expediency of so amending the Constitution as expressly to forbid the withdrawal of any State from the Union without the consent of two-thirds of both Houses of Congress, the approval of the President, and the consent of all the States." Objection was made to the resolution, so it was not received.4 In the closing days of this session, after seven States had already withdrawn and several others were preparing to take similar action, Senator Doolittle of Wisconsin, who subse App., No. 824. Referred to the Select Committee on the Condition of the Country. App., No. 904. It would seem that the same proposition was reintroduced by him in 1862. Riddle, Recollection of War Times, pp. 165-166. See also App., No. 977; ante, par. 48. 3 App., No. 891. App., No. 910. |