Burlington hawk-eye. [volume] (Burlington, Iowa) 1845-185?, 1845-05-29
THE CONSTITUTIONAL. NEW
VIEW.

The wonderfully wise men in Iowa
City-we mean the majority Of the
Legisla.ure-were still insisting at last
dates to submit. tina. defunct Consti,u.
ton which the people killed off some
time since 10 another vote. The alb.
surdi.y Of such a movement appears
more and more ridiculous every time
we think OF it. That the world may
not be in darkness on the subject we
shall again hastily and briefly review
the position in which we are placed,
and pu. the blame where it belongs.
The Legislature framed law calling
upon the people to vote for or against a
Convention. The vote was taken and
majority were in favor of a Conven.
ton. In accordance with that vote the
requisite numbers were chosen TO rep
resen. the people in that Convention.
The people and the law required that
the Constitution framed by the Con.
vention should be submitted to them at
given time for their adoption or re.
lection. There was no in.imation in
the law that any other course was to be
pursued. But the members Of the Con.
ven.ion took the responsibility of devi.
a,ing from the requirement of the law.
Instead of submitting it first to the peo-
pie. they submitted it to Congress.
This was an aggressive movement,
usurpation of power, which has caused
all the trouble that now exists on the
subject. The new organ in Iowa City
saw and acknowledged the mistake,
although it deserves far harsher name.
In the meantime the period came round
in which it was to be submitted TO the
people. 1t was thus submitted. 1t
was condemned by large majority
voting against it. But, say the trainers
of the Cons.i,u.ion-and they still cling
10 their darling-it was not on account
Of any defects in the instrument itself,
but it was on account of the alteration
in the Boundary made by Congress-
We say this is not true. We declare
further that the question of boundary
was not and could not be the question.
That question could not have been sub.
mitted to the people when they were
called upon to vote for and against the
Constitution. The people had before
them the Constitution as whole-as it
came from The hands of the Conven.
,ion-as i. had been published by au.
.horily oflaw for their perusal. They
could know no other. la,cfuliy. under
the circumstances. We 60 further and
say if majority had voted in favor of
the instrument, it would not have
committed ,hem-unless they had cho-
sen to be commitied-to the new boun.
dairy. The Constitution as adopted by
them, and as it came from the Conven-
ton, would then have been submitted
to Congress, with proper explanations.
Congress might or nigh, no. insist up.
on its amendments. If did, then the
people would have been called on TO
rejec, or ra,ify. All the dust tina, has
been thrown into the peoples eyes on
this question has almos, bewildered
them. But they can see plainly from
our statement and the facts in the case
that all the trouble has been brought
about by the premature and usurped
action of the Convention itself. That
Convention ought TO be branded with
ignominy and shame for their action in
the matter. They and they alone have
brought ON all the difficulty that has
clustered around this vexed subject
and they and they alone are RESPONSE
BILE. They now want 10 atone for or
remedy the evil in a way that is as alb
surd and unheard of as the one they
first pursued. The presen. Legislature
seems determined to second them in
their efforts. Well, let them 60 it,
They will find the people prepared for
them. Tha. dead Constitution will be
counted twice killed if it is submitted
to the people in August next. Mark
that.