Mr. ROGERS. This bringstme to another suggestion that more strongly fortifies the argument I have made, and which suggestion was not at any time made in the discussion of the question about amendments of the constitution last winter. If I understand the gentleman, he takes the ound that because the constitution of the U.S. provides that it shall not be amended in one particularwith regard to representation in the Senatethat exception proves the rule; that because that exception to the power of amendment is there, it shows that the framers of the constitution when they formed it, and the States when they adopted it, intended that it could be amended by 3/4ths of the States so as to destroy and take away every power reserved to the States and which the had not delegated to their Federal a cut. hlow, if that is the true construction of the constitution of the U.S., then the decisions of the SCOTUS in the State of Maryland and the decision of the SCOTUS in SCarolina, and the decision of the highest court of the U.S. in the State of NewYork, that Government bonds cannot be taxed because they are used by the Federal Government as a means to carry its purioses into effect, are false and erroneous. The only limitation which the constitution places upon the power of taxation by a State is that no duties shall be laid upon experts or imports by a State except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its own inspection laws; yet it was decided in the Bank case in Maryland, Charleston case, and in the great casetried in NewYork by the court of appeals without a dissentin veice, that although the constitution of the U.S. makes no exception to the power of any; State to tax anything of any character save 1 regard to duties on exports and imports, yet the exception did not prove the rule, and the State had no rightto tax the Federal bonds. Why, for the simple reason that Federal bonds are one of the instrumental ities employed by the Federal Government to carry its powers into spemtion. There is nothing in the letter of the constitution of the U.S. that infringes in the least upon the right of the several States of this Union to tax every single Government bond which has been issued here even upon a contract on the part of the Government with the bondholder that the Government will not tax the bonds, (which contract I deny;) yet it cannot be done, for the simple reason that this is an act within the sovereign power of the Federal Government, is an act within the sovereign power of congress under the constitution, is a weapon used the federal Government to defend itself an carry its own powers into execution. To tax these bonds by a State would be against the spirit and intent of the constitution, because it would 010 the wheels of the Government if the States ha the right to tax the Government bonds, the U.S. mails, the customhouses, patent rights, and allthese things. Why 2 Because they are means employed by the Federal Government to carry its own powers into effect. Therefore the exception in the constitution of the U.S., that it shall not be amended in relation to U.S. Senators, does not prove that within the spirit and intent of the constitution, which is its cornerstone and foundation, which isits blood and life, any amendment can be made unless it happens to come within the very terms of that excction. Gentlemen talk of his as a national Government, and that seems to be the theory of most gentlemen upon the other side of the House. I am satisfied that there are honor able gentleman upon that side of the House who have the true theory of the Government in their hearts who know that their children are to come after them and that they are to legislate for osterity, who can see as well as I that the government is now on trial, that there is a contest between liberty and consol idated despotism, and that they esiro to leave liberty to their children undefiled and unblotted as it was given to us by the blood of our fathers through the severe trials of the Revolution, that it maybe handed down to their descendants unim paired forever oud eVer. I have no more concemin the stability of this Government than any other man upon this floor, and when I speak for the great rights of the States here, that which I utter I utter in no partisan character, but with an honest love for my count, not only North but South. I love the whole people and the whole land. I consider that I stand here as well the representative of the interests of SCarolina as the representative of the interests of NewJersey. I have not forgotten the 01d doctrine of Daniel Web ster, that there is no East, no West, no North, no South, and I warn the people of the eastern States that the day may come when those small States may want to assert their didity in the Union bythat balance of power which the Federal system contemplated when it allowed the smallest States to have as much representation in the Senate as the greatest State in the whole Union. Why, if our fathers did not intend to preserve the rights of the States, did they give to NewJersey, RhdIsland, and Vermont, each the same power that could be exercised by the cat State of Virginia or the great State. of ewYorkI Theydid it because our fathers wanted to prevent that very imperial despotism which they had fought to put down; they wished to implant in this country a system of liberty that would protect mine r ities as well as maiiorities. An if the States have no rights, if their rights can be destroyed by amendments to the constitution, then 1 ea liberty in this country has fallen from the luminous sphere of freedom, and never will light here again until we come back to the principles of our fathers, and exercise them in the spirit of ChristianityI mean those principles of Justice to all parts of the Union which were in scribed upon the banners which our fathers  followed whenth put down the legions of King George and proc aimed liberty throughout the land In answer to that question of the gentleman, I will say that when the treat was made be ttVeenGreat Britain and the U.S., every single one of the States was named by name. The States under the old Articles of Confederation were sovereign and independent; and when our fathers framedn the constitution of the U.S., they intended to give up but such as they delegated to the Federal head, which were amply sufficient for the inherent powerof every government to protect its own existence from all foes whether within or without. The memorable revolution in England, of 1688, was denominated by Voltaire as the era of linglish liberty. James H had rendered himself so obnoxious to the English peole that he was obliged to flee for his life. he people then overthrew the dogma that the Legislature was above the people, and that the people had no right to govern themselves. Since the revolution of 1069 England has had 41 revolutions, all of them growing out of this same despotic idea that the Government is above the interests of the people and the system upon which the Government was founded): It was to resist the useation on the rt of the Government of Great ritain, that deprived the people of liberties which they held as inherent rights under the laws of God and of man, that there resulted the stn endeus revolution that gave to the people of reatBritain the Magna Charta. [ lure the hammer fell.]