The weekly hawk-eye. [volume] (Burlington, Iowa) 1858-1860, 1858-11-16

person an act Of the leeislasaro MAY have for
sAieoe che bene1t Of ell peeoous IN he State,
whether natural o. nrti6eiAl. An oct may have
for its e6jcetths esppressioa Of iutsmperancs,
o. the punishment q crimea Aurdse may Be
defined BY such a oct and its psnalsic1 de-
slarsd. Arson. burglary, thsft. &c.. may oil Be
treated Of in tho salDs chapter.
close Of each sooaion Of the legislature, make
many specific tiers ef appropria lions to differ.
snt individuals, and still are not obnoxious to
this clause Of the constitution. Hence, no OBJ
lection 10 perceived why bill may not have for
its object the appropriation Of money to aid e.
or six different railroad companies thsre.n sps-
siasd.
What think the legal fraternity Of this kind
OF an argument from the repused Ajax Of their
profession! Is not this another demonstration
Of the desperate condition Of the strong man in
the morass, whose very strength renders hope
less all effort to escape! Who, bus man en-
ployed to 6nd analogies, can find the most re-
mote one between the cases stated BY Mr..
Smith and the question now under censidsra-
tiens And, suppose the General Assemblies
have violated both the old and the new Consti-
buttons, 10 that substantial reason why the
Constitution should be violated in this instance!
And, finally, We would like 70 ask the Railroad
advocates and spectators, whssbsr they think
il would be safe for the people Of the State
and especially whether they think it would be
safe for their Companies to rely upon General
Assemblies tor judicial constructions!
Speaking of constitutional limitations. Mr..
Smith says, 'thess restrictions are not supposed
to limit the powers OF the people," We sup
pose they do, Mr.. Smith. We suppose that the
people cannot enact or repeal Law, even with
the cooperation of the General Assembly, un-
less il be done 10 strict conformity to constitu
tional provisions, certainly not in opposition TO
them. We suppose that the people cannot
ordain Or sbrogats . constitutional provision
unless it be done in accordance with the SUI
prsme law. Any other doctrine 10 revolution
airy, and we suggest to Mr.. Smith and his
railroad cosdjutors, that under his theory
prece dent would be established that might be
most disastrous to the railroad companies
themselves; for, if by vote of the people an
express constitutional provision may be over
borne, in order to grant money to the eompa-
MES, what is there to prevent the same money,
and, indeed, all the franchises of the companies,
being wrssted from them at . future day, by .
vote Of the people! We have been taught to
believe thai capital is timid, but there must be
. mistake in that teaching, il it is not fright
ened at this position Of one Of its favored at
torneys.
There are these, we learn, who insist that
this constitutional objection can be obviated,
by submitting to the people the general pro
position to buy q largo quantity of railroad iron,
which, when bought, is to be distributed by
he Legislature, among the several railroad
companies. 1t seems that the inquiry is not
now, rs formerly, how shall the constitution be
supported and upheld, but, how can its plainest
provisions be plausbly overcome and avoided.
The very argument in favor Of this peculiar
method of proceeding, this proposal to make
the State great factor of iron, is predicated
upon the opinion that it is virtual violation OF
the Constitution; else why not furnish tho
money or the state bonds to the companies at
oncey Why this indirection, this attempt 10
whip the ID around the stump Is i. supposed
that State agents can purchase iron on more
favorable terms than Company agents! Unless
this proposal is designed a. an evasion of the
constitutional PROFESSIONALLY can not some one
psint US to, at least, an imag inary advantage,
Ia allowing the State to embark in this kind Of
speculation? The truth is, the whole thing 10
subssrfugs aud an article, by which to dslude
the tax payers Of the State.
There is hardly a man in the State. who 10
not familiar wish the history Of the 9Th Section
sf the 7th Article of the Constitution. It was
in the first Constitution submitted
10 shs people of this State in 1874, aud was
retained in the Constitutions of 1916 and 1857.
The trainers of those instruments were warned
BY the recent examples Of Illinois and Of other
States, and they determined to provide in add
vance, against the log'rolliDg schemes, which
came near crushing those States, and which
are now proposed in this. We shall shortly see
vhsths: they we're successful. 1t 10 soon 10 be
whether q solemn constitutional
provision means something, or whether it is
ieluson and a snare.