FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   476   477   478   479   480   481   482   483   484   485   486   487   488   489   490   491   492   493   494   495   496   497   498   499   500  
501   502   503   504   505   506   507   508   509   510   511   512   513   514   515   516   517   518   519   520   521   522   523   524   525   >>   >|  
onditional _permission_? Is a _constitutional power_ to be exercised by those who hold it, only by popular _sufferance_? Must it lie helpless at the pool of public sentiment, waiting the gracious troubling of its waters? Is it a lifeless corpse, save only when popular "consent" deigns to put breath into its nostrils? Besides, if the consent of the people of the District be necessary, the consent of the _whole_ people must be had--not that of a majority, however large. Majorities, to be authoritative, must be _legal_--and a legal majority without legislative power, right of representation, or even the electoral franchise, would be an anomaly. In the District of Columbia, such a thing as a majority in a legal sense is unknown to law. To talk of the power of a majority, or the will of a majority there, is mere mouthing. A majority? Then it has an authoritative will--and an organ to make it known--and an executive to carry it into effect--Where are they? We repeat it--if the consent of the people of the District be necessary, the consent of _every one_ is necessary--and _universal_ consent will come only with the Greek Kalends and a "perpetual motion." A single individual might thus perpetuate slavery in defiance of the expressed will of a whole people. The most common form of this fallacy is given by Mr. Wise, of Virginia, in his speech, February 16, 1835, in which he denied the power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District, unless the inhabitants owning slaves petitioned for it!! Southern members of Congress at the present session ring changes almost daily upon the same fallacy. What! pray Congress _to use_ a power which it _has not_? "It is required of a man according to what he _hath_," saith the Scripture. I commend Mr. Wise to Paul for his ethics. Would that he had got his _logic_ of him! If Congress does not possess the power, why taunt it with its weakness, by asking its exercise? Why mock it by demanding impossibilities? Petitioning, according to Mr. Wise, is, in matters of legislation, omnipotence itself; the very source of all constitutional power; for, _asking_ Congress to do what it _cannot_ do, gives it the power--to pray the exercise of a power that is _not, creates_ it. A beautiful theory! Let us work it both ways. If to petition for the exercise of a power that is _not_, creates it--to petition against the exercise of a power that _is_, annihilates it. As southern gentlemen are partial to summary proce
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   476   477   478   479   480   481   482   483   484   485   486   487   488   489   490   491   492   493   494   495   496   497   498   499   500  
501   502   503   504   505   506   507   508   509   510   511   512   513   514   515   516   517   518   519   520   521   522   523   524   525   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
consent
 

majority

 

Congress

 

District

 

people

 

exercise

 
authoritative
 

popular

 

creates

 

fallacy


slavery

 

constitutional

 

petition

 

required

 

petitioned

 

abolish

 

denied

 

speech

 

February

 
inhabitants

owning
 
members
 
present
 

session

 

Southern

 
summary
 

slaves

 
legislation
 

omnipotence

 
annihilates

Petitioning

 
matters
 
source
 

theory

 
beautiful
 
impossibilities
 

southern

 
partial
 

ethics

 

Scripture


commend

 
demanding
 

weakness

 

possess

 

gentlemen

 

Majorities

 
Besides
 
nostrils
 

deigns

 
breath