initiated in the resolutions of the State of Kentucky.

There are two ways of presenting amendments to the Constitution
provided in that instrument. By the first, by Congress whenever
two-thirds of both Houses shall deem such amendments necessary: or by
the second, the same body, upon the application of the Legislatures of
two-thirds of the States, may call a convention for the purpose of
proposing amendments. These two are the _only_ modes in which, under
that instrument, amendments can be proposed to the Constitution.
Either of these is adequate, and it was the manifest intention of its
framers to secure due consideration of any changes which might be
proposed to the fundamental law of our Government.

It is conceded on all hands that our action here will amount to
nothing, unless it meets the approval of Congress, and such proposals
of amendment as we shall agree upon are recommended by that body to
the States for adoption. The session of the present Congress is
drawing to a close. There remain only fifteen or sixteen days during
which it can transact business. Can any one suppose that in the
present state of the country, with the large number of important
measures before Congress and awaiting its action, any proposition of
real importance emanating from this Conference could be properly
considered by either House in this short time? I am assuming just now
that this is a Convention which has the right, under the Constitution
or by precedent, to make such propositions. But if we do not remember,
most certainly Congress will, that however respectable this body may
be, however large may be the constituency which it represents, it is,
after all, one which has no existence under, and is not recognized by
the Constitution. In a recent speech in the Senate, Judge COLLAMER, of
Vermont, one of the ablest lawyers in that body, has more than
intimated a doubt whether Congress could, under the Constitution,
entertain proposals of amendment presented to it by such a body as
this. But, waiving all technicalities, the substantial objection which
influences my mind is, that the course of action proposed by the
majority of the committee is contrary to the spirit of the
Constitution. When the people adopted that instrument and subjected
themselves to its operation, they intended and had a right to
understand that it should be amended only in the manner provided by
the Constitution itself. They did not intend that amendments should b