New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-04-23

! State. when the majority OF the Senate would
not vote to suit them, broke up the Government
by abandoning the trust which the people had
/ devolved upon them. The principle Of both pro-
/ ceedings is the same the difference between
them consists 10 the kind OF force resorsed 20.
Il may be said that al appeal in this case Is
simply taken 20 the people; that they are called
upon TO decide by their votes. whether zoe wa
Of the majority ls, or Is not, IN accordance WIN
their wi,h 80 il was in Crom wells case. he
broke Up Parliament aud ordered new election
/ He appealed to the people TO sustain his acts
So il slwaysis in France, in Mexico, aud IN the
Republican States Of South America. An an
bilious, diacontented minority rebel against the
majority, and appeal to the people. The wrong
and the danger ia those cases as II this, lie IN tne
fact that the aypeal is not taken in conformity rHh
the fundamental lar Uhich all hare agreed 10 d6pfe
! 6v. The Constitution Of this State provides Tor
/ an appeal 10 the people The actions OF the ma
| jority are to be reviewed and judged every year.
! But the disorgsnizDg minority DO not ABIDE oy
| that agreement. They claim the right 70 take
new appeals whenever the majority propose to
enact any lay which they dislike. II is easy TO
see how such principle, carried out, must lney.
! itably destroy all representative government, and
plunge US into hopeless anarchy.
IL NAV be urged that after twelve Senators had
resigned twenty were still left, and that the Le-
| gisature Of the State nigh still have gone for
ward ia making the appropriations that were re-
| auired. To this the reply is,
FIRST. That TO make appropriations for the null
tifarous objects which the good Of the State re-
quired, when tco ftthS OF the people oil tue state
were unrepresented, and could have no voice In
making them would have been gross violation
If the fret principles Of jaatiOS, and Of for
| the popular will.
/ Second That some of the most i'm portant acts
! of the Legislature required the assent of ttoo-
! thirds Of all the members elected TO each branch
thereof and as tacOtkiTdS OF the Senators were
not left therein, there was no Senate for many OF
the purposes contemplated by the Constitution.
Its rghtiul power therefore, to transact any ousl-
ness was not free from doubt.
| Third That it would have been In the power
of any one member to dictate TO the Legislature,
Eupposng it to have been empowered to transact
business, the amount and object OF each specific
appropriation under threats OF defeating them
all. To have put the whole financial power OF the
! State thus into the hands OF single person,
would have been a base betrayal of the public
interests and the lights of the People
Fourth. That one o. the remaining Senators de-
clared in open Senate that unless the order OF
legislative business fixed by the Senate ahould
/ be laid aside, and he should be allowed to pre-
scribe what should and what should not be done,
! be would also vacate his seat and render further
! legislation impossible. To have complied with
I such demand would have degraded the Senate
below the level fhim who made 1t.
Fifth. Each OF these twelve Senators had placed
upon record his solemn belief that one Of those
remaining (Air. ScHooNMAKER) was not a Sena-
tor, having been elected TO Congress. They
therefore cannot consistently believe that there
were twenty Senators left-nor can they be sin
cere in urging that acts requiring three tjMScOuld
still have been passed This position, whatever
NAV be its intrinsic merits, is certainly good
against those who hold It,
Upon these grounds, fortified as they are by the
most conclusive reasoning, the undersigned sub
nit to the People ofthis State, that the step taken
by the minority who vacated their seats in the
Senate and thus, by destroying the Consttu-
tional quorum, rendered legislation impossible,
would, ii sanctioned, establish principle danger
Gus to the interests and destructive to the rights,
of the people, in a Government which recognizes
the principle that ma jOrities must rule.
We shall now proceed to consider the pretexts
by which these persons endesvor to Justify the
course they have taken. They are all embraced
in the statement, that the bill upon sckich the
Senate w0S about TO act tcGS one lobtch IN He1
judgment, ought not TO pass and as majority
Of all the members elected to the Senate were In
favor of it. this was the only way in which 1t
could be defeated.
II will be clear from what has already been
said, that this excuse does not Affect, IN the
slightest degree the principle involved. II a mi
nOrity may defeat His bill, In this way, any other
bill may be defeated, through all time to come, In
the same way by any minority that may be op-
posed TO it's enactment. The Constitution was
never intended TO cothe the minority with any
such power. The provision, requiring quorum
OF three TINS, was never designed TO empower
minority to defeat legislation and IN the Conven'
ton which framed the Constitution, the bare sug-
gestion that it might be so used, was secuted as
impossible and absurd. Hon. MICHAEL HoFF-
MAN, who was the leader at the dominant party
in that Convention, and the author of this clause,
said, that it was designed las q guarantee for
safe Legislation" by requiring fall repre-
sentation Of the people Z" Mr. WoRDES I'VE
| quote from the Debates) suggested that this
/ ,l5ifg he al flrO
! dtdWng, 10 defeat tctse legislation. MIR. Hoff-
MANN replied that tie house from ohtch they
retired tcotid 9eserre int0say lt did not imprlson
them for IT," This is perfectly conclusive &C to
| the intent Of this provision OF the Constitution,
and shows that no such power is conferred or con-
| templated by it. as has been asserted and exer
cised in this instance. And the effect of sanction
| ing this proceeding will be, to epgratt upon the
! Constitution a new proylslon-that minority OF
two fifths in either branch may veto the action OF
the Legislature. We are quite willing that the
/ People should decide whether this is a safe and
| lust prnciple-and whether this is proper and
| Constitutional mode OF amending that instrument.
| But il is alleged by this minority, that the bill
embodied violation OF the Consultation, and that
they were, therefore, lustted IN resorting 10 any
means necessary to prevent its enactment. Grant
ng, for the sake Of the argument that the bill was
| unconstitutional, 1t is sufficient 70 say in reply,
that the People of the State have nowhere dele.
gated 10 raiHorfy In either branch Of the Legs.
lRtuIe, Jurisdiction over questions arising under
the Constitution. The Judicial power of the State
is conferred upon Courts of Law. Those Courts
have jurisdiction over all cases in law and equity,
arising under the Constitution or under laws pug.
porting TO be made by it's authority. If the ma.
jority in each branch OF the Legislature enact any
Jaw, and the Governor gives it his approval, the
presumption must be that it does not violate the
| Constitution and il doubt arises upon this point,
Courts have been organized for It's decision. And
1t is the duty Of minorties to abide by every Law
enacted until its unconstitutionslity shall have
| been pronounced by those Courts who are the
| only competent authorities
But the minority, in this case, have usurped
that authority. These thirteen Senators have Ia
| ken it upon themselves to decide a point which