, 1862-05-12

constitution is adopted ly the people OF the |
State, and is, In facr, to continue ia force, al
though tie constitution ~ l. whole, may be |
repuiiatedby the people Of the State. /
The section in question, has two distinct pro- |
Visions blended into one. a general provision, |
prescribing limitation ofexecuttSe and 1egis- |
latiye aetion IN he f.tare, and spe1ia peoEis.
ion repeating an exsting laW Of the legislature
Of the State Of Illinois,
The general provision provides that there
after neither the governor nor the general as
aemt}y ahan appoint any person to any office
for the city Of Chicago, but al officers OF said
Of appointed By the mayor and d1deenen, as I
provided by present laws. Or oy such general
laws as may be passed By the general assembly
under this constitution
The sEeceii provision is to the effect that the
act approved February 2a, 1861. .eatltled an
act re- -ulataug the custody and sale Of pc sonl |
property, etc, and IN acs to establish bard |
cf police, etc, be- and the same are each and |
all of them hereby repealed, and the powers
aud duties Of 81 eh,cers appointed under and
If the genera, provision first mentioned, had
been incorporated into the constitution az q
part Of it, and adopted By the people, there
could BE no valid objection made to it, except
that which arises out Of its being local pro-
vision inserted in constitution designed for
the whole State; 4 very grave objection to it
certainly, rs 3 matter Of policy and proprletJ,
but the legality Of which is not necessary now
to consider.
But the entire section is adopted by the con-
Tent3on as an amendment Of the constitution
Of the State Of Illinois, upon the contingency
oftbe legal voters OF the city Of Chicago vot-
ing in Il certain way, upon certain PROPOSE
tion, Submitted to them Ut tho ensuing maaic-
ipa1 election.
The convention have added this provision
TO the existing constitution Of this State Of
their oHn will and pleasure, without submit
ting it to the vote Of the people ot the Stlte OF
even OF the people Of the city whom it affects.
Had they provided for Q submission Of
the II Fec fss'0n e II eqsSst99n oS 9cso to the d gotS
have made no difference, because it is the le-
gal voters Of the ,ehoze State, and not Of the
city Of Chicago, who have the power to alter
or amend the constitution Of the State, and in
my opinion it would not be competent to
to different localities and at different times,
but it must be submitted to the whole people
and at one and the same time.
But in this case, this question does not arise,
because this section "a not Submitted erss to the
hga' rioters Of Chicago. They are not authorized
part OF the constitution. They are simply au-
1h0rized to write upon certain ballots, "tor
or against the city Of Chicago elccting ita OWL
officers and il majority Of the legal voters
voting at said election, as indicated by said
ballots, shall be IN favor Of the people Of said
| city electing their OWL officers, then the laws
| named are repealed, and the provisions Of that
| section become operative.
| There is i wide difference between the CUES
! ton submitted to the legal voters Of Chicago,
sfction thrty four should be adopted as an amend
ment to the Constitution. It is one thing for
the people to be in favor, henceforth, Of elect
ing I'LL municipal officers By popular vote, and
quite another thing for them to be in favor OF
ejectiDg, before the expiration Of their terms,
/ all nf1i1nre 1hh hoTa haan heFrtnf0r. s1thrr.
| wise appointed under existing laws.
| The convention might just as we'll have
made their adoption Of the thirty y-fourth Sec
| ton contingent upon the result Of the vote Of
on that specified in the article. The legal cf-
| feet would have been il no respect different If
| they had adopted the section and provided that
1 at the HeNt municipal election the legal voters
should write on their ballots "for or against
John Wentworth for mnyor Of Chicago,n and
voters in favor Of said John Wentworth Tor
Mayor, sas indicated By sa!d Eords,''
then ait should not be lawful etc,
"and the laws named should be
forthwith repealed" and the section bcconle
part If the constitution Of the State of Ill
iDOis.
Such vote could not, Of course, in any way
give any force to the action Of the convention,
and the section in question must therefore
rest for its yalGity wholly upon the power OF
| lIC EUuN NEul1Du IL Esl1DIlhQ anu AuQpt II aS al
amendment to tic existing constitution, with
out its adoption by the people off the State.
Now if the convention had the power OF it.
I self, and without any vote Of the people, to
add one amendment to the existing constitn.
sion, however slight, then they could sdd all
| the rest. The po1ce3 being conceded the ex-
tout ofits exercise is, OF course. mere matte,
| Of tSpt dicncy, to be determined by the con
| Tentior itself Hence as it caunut be denied
that the limitation Of executive aud Legislative
power in respect to the municipal officers o'
Chicago, provided By this section, does not tx.
ist in the pFcscnt constitution, Its adoption,
| is "ex nece5sitate" III amendment of the
| present constitution, aud if this amendment
| cal become valid and binding, without q vote
Of tic whole people of the State, then the
l. whole constitution and all the amendments
could hare been made valid aud binding, bJ
the mere vote Of a majority Of the convention
and without any adoption of them by thu
people. And if, on the other hand, no one O
the amendments to the constitution adopted
by the convention, could become part o
he constitution, or take effect until adopted
by vote Of the people Of the State, tlou tht
section in question must necessarily be void
for all its provisions are, by its own expires
terms, limited 10 take effect, not only befor
such vote il taken, hut wholly irrespective aut
Independent of such vote.
The whole question seems therefore to re
eolyc itself into single point.
Bad the convention which assembled q
Springfield, the power to change the constitu
lion Of the State Of Illinois " lis Own vott
constitution by the people Of thu Stlte2
Ii the laH under which the convention as
! | semblcd, and under the sanction Of whcl
their action took place, is to decide the mat
|, Ter, there is nothing left tor discussion /; 70
that declares. in positive terms, that til
,, amendments. revisions or aIterations shall b
: submitted By the convention to the people
> t'fof their adoption or rejection ard aheA ze
!, stafe effect unless adopted By majority Of tn
"leenl voters"
But 1t il claimed that the convention, Ehe
! elected under this Law, are shove the Law i
pursuance Of Which they were elected. Tha
The limitation on their authority, containc
in the Legislative act, WAS of no validity
That. the legislature had no authority whate1
or to instruct or control them, but simply pre
vide for their election, and that when g1ecec
they are vested with the supreme power
:, the people without limit or restraint, an
= had authority to alter or amend the const
- tuition, or make 0 new one BY their on
: dctalone, and that the submission Of any Of th
! amendments to the vote OF the people, va
: wholly matter resting in the discretion
z the convention, and the whole or any pa
= | adopted by the convention without such Bu'
! I mission, is valid and binding upon the peop
= OF the State.
!; If this doctrine be sound, it is cert.inl
e most alarming In its tendency. If few me
- can assemble together in convention, and
Q their osn mere will and pleasure overtime
:. the fundamental law Of the State, on whit
e | tie whole social structure and poliry Of tt
:, | State IL bascd. aud erect a new and dlfttre
Il one, without the assent Of the people, then
= system Of government may be forced upe
+ tue people destructive to their best social al
). material interests, and the people, withos
their knowledge or consent lorrver subject,
o ita control, or forced TO take revolutions
- act1on akalnaL it. For the constitution
!, framed, might be declared not amenda5se.
u The mode Of amendment made 30 dif6ct
u and protTacted rs to amount practically tc
u prohibition. Or, BY the terms Of the NJ
= Constitution, the right Of suffrage might be
IL restricted As TO 6isfranchise great numbers
. the people, and deprive them Of thet1 polite
- rights and privileges altogether.
= All thtEe consequences 1oE directly fro
" " the POSITION that the convention could, By
" " own power, aud by force Of the vote Of Il Il
20 jority Of its members, and without any ado
=, ton BY Eote Of the people, make a new CO
:. stitutlou which should be binding upon t
Is people Of the State Of Illinois.
ae This doctrine is utterly opposed to the fl
y damtnta1 principles which undertie our VIII.
r. system of popular government, and has
" precedent In practice, except that which
q furnished by the Leeompton convention
~ ~ kapsas,-a precedent which has been ce
~ ~ oenned By the people Of the free States vi
A. A. great unanimfty, and regarded as an infhmo
- =, attempt to destroy the liberties Of the peo]
70 70 Ut that State.
H. It is needless to expose the dangers to
~ liberties and rights OF the people, RESULT
Er from such docutne- They are apparent
-$AI rrFtH7