Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1821-05-22

1871, 20 hare r,ea ooua;eEarce 20 Tie o,;rion that
amendment, thus proposed might lie adopted b, diff
tereut states, AZ dhcrcht, aud distant, periods Of
time, and that the constitutional yo,. of three iourtl,-
oil the state legislatures; thus obt ned arc sufficient
10 establish amendment of the constitution with
ON any formal RENEWAL of the proposition by Con-
grcss. The limit, AMI that cen only b. inferred
seems 20 be, that the state legislatures riust have
dosat' ely acted updn it. SEQ the resolutions refer
rcd "a, OF the 2d of Alarch 1897 page 600 yo 30
! Had the Editor tackled this Note TO the ar
tcie itseli--or had he here referred to the OH
page, or thrown out the slightest circ,nn-
stance on which to- hinge doubt,' instead
OF leaving the reader To hunt through his
whole Voi,meby possibility OF finding some
thing upon an article, of which he gave no
room To doubt, the whole matter would have
been clear. All " misconceptions" tcouid here
been in fact prevented"
Information since this Edition was pub
lished gives room To believe that the de
iective Evidence" has not been or could not
be supplied. The Philadelphia - Press
states, that in Purdon's Digest of the Laws
OF Pennsylvania, printed in 1918 (three years
after the 18th amendment has the follow
lng note siibj0ned by Dir. Purdon Tie
following article was proposed by Congress
to the several States for their adoption. as
part of the Constitution, and has been rati-
ned by the state of Pennsylvania, and some
OF the other States, but had not, in Noyem-
Der, 1913, been ratified by the Number ot
states required by the 9TH Art. Of the Con
sututlon, and Is therefore as vet no part of
the Constitution of the u. So cit is GU
riotls, that III attempting TO correct this mis-
take, the Press" itself falls into another mis-
take, Of misprinting the article itself from the
18th p. Of the Laws OF the u. sly
We can find no trace of Virginid'S having
acted upon the resolution and we are in
clined to believe, on the whole, that 1t
has not been adopted by thrcc-fourlhs of
the state legislatures.-The ID. Press calls
upon the editors of the National Mselligen-
Ger to investigate the fact ; in the Depart
ment of State, we presume.-But, we SEE in
the first place, how difficult it was for the
Secretary of State in 1915 to ascertain this
very fact; and hence the conclusion, that
there Is some mode yet wanting for regular
~ collecting and registering the votes OF the
State Legislatures on this subject. This
conclusion is placed beyond all doubt By the
following resolution Of Congress on the Cd
March, 1897 90 ReSolred &C. That the Pre-
sident be requested to adopt some speedy
and eiiectual means of obtaining information
from the states of Connecticut, New Jersey.
Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, Kentrc-
ky, Tennessee, and South Carolina, wheth-
Ut uiey nave ratl1eu inc amendment, pro-
posed by congress, to the constitution, con
corning the stability of states if they Have,
to obtain the proper eUidenccS thereof"
These circumstances prompt us TO en-
quire, whether some mode ought not to be-
adopted by law for collecting an authentica-
ted record of the votes of the different
States on proposed amendments To the Con-
stitution =? We might moot other points up
on this subiect-s,Ich rs, what would be the
effect of a States acting upon and agreeing
to an amendment, which was supposed TO
have been put TO sleep for several years p
Can State at one session Of its legislature
agree To an amendment, which at a proceed
ing session ii had rejected 4 new State
comes into the Union, and changes the con
stitutional ratio Of 3-4ths. Has she right
TO make this change, while an amendment
is pending-and to give her vote UpOn il
We might moot several cases of this sort,
hut IT is quite unnecessary, as they may ne
yer be realiZed-but, it does appear. that
some speedy and efIectllal means" ought
to be fixed, for " Containing information from
the states" in all cases of proposed amend
ments.
y