The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1865-11-27

sertion that the imposition of the test
oath was endorsed by the people of the
State at the late election. The Editor of
the Intellgencer knows that in every
county where the Republican party fear
ed defeat it refused to openly endorse
the test oath and constitutional amend
ment. In this county they did not dare
60 before the people on those issues anu
so they made no platform at all anu 'ne
Republican candidates, when questioned!
concerning their opinion In reference TO
these things, refused to reply In many
of tho counties, enough voters who
we're qualified to exercise the right
Of suffrage ny the constitution OF the
State we're excluded from the polls
to change the result of the election,
and in some places, after the votes had
been legally cast, and candidates elected
who we're opposed to the test oath, the
returns were falsifed, and conservative
votes illegally omitted from the count
in order TO secure the election of n radi-
cal. Mr.. VAN WINKLE knows that this
was the case, and it will require more
than the IRteltigencer's assertion to con-
vince him that the proceeding which he
thinks is deeply to be regretted" has
been endorsed by the people of the State,
If "the people" means simply the radical
Jacobin clique in this State, which is
the sense in which the LRtelHgencer
seems to use the word, then the test
oath was endorsed, and the same party
will endorse anything which keeps them
in power, no matter how mOnstrous il
may be. But if the whole people Of tLe
State, the legal voters, be meant, the
test oath was not endorsed and never
will be.
But there is another portion o, Mr.
VAN Wrinkles letter against which our
neighbor has leveled his heaviest artil-
lery, and this, us we'll as the other posi-
ton assumed by the distinguished Sena-
tor, is imprcgnable. 1t sprOvidedin the
| first section of the twelfth article Of the
constitution that no amendment of that
instrument shall, by any shift or de-
vice, be made to have any retrospective
operation or effect The proposed amend
ment being entirely retrospective, Mr.
VAN WINKLE holds that it transcends the
lawful power Of amendment and cannot
be adopted: the IRtellgencer insists that
any amendment, retrospective or other
wise, may be adopted any clause of the
existing constitution to the contraryno
withstanding.
The power of amending the constitu-
| ton is not absolute; it is necessarily linn
tied by the scope and design of the con-
| stitution itself Certainly no one will
contend that the constitution can be so
amended as to change the form of our
State government from republic to a
hereditary monarchy ! The constitu-
ton cannot be so amended as to destroy
itself. The people may, if they choose,
abolish the present form of government
and set up another, but such action can
not BE taken in the form Of a constitu-
tional amendment. 1t would wipe out
and destroy the constitution, not amend
it, There are certain limitations set to
the power of amendment beyond which
it is impossible to 90 without the total
subverslon Of the organic law. These
limitations are sometimes expressed and
sometimes implied: one of them is ex'
pressed in the twelfth article Of the con-
stitution of the State, and forbids for all
time, so long as any portion Of that i'll
strument remains in force, the adoption
of any amendment having any RETROSPECT
tive operation or effect.
It is curious to observe with what care
and apparent anxiety the trainers Of the
constitution and the people who ratified
it have labored to preclude the possibili-
ty Of the adoption of such an amendment
us that which is proposed. In the first
place, the constitution of the United
States expressly prohibits the passage by
any of the States OF an er post .tactO law.
This would be sufficient of itself to pre-.
vent the incorporation, into the organic
law of this State, of the proposed amend
mcnt. But, in addition to this, the Sec
ond article of our State constitution in
the first section of what is deemed so sa-
cred and inalienable as to he entitled
Bill of Rights" repeats the language Of
the constitution of the United States
and again forbids the passage of any e.
post Jaoto law. Not satisfied with this
double prohibition, the men who framed
our constitution have added a third. in
that article which forbids the adoption
Of any amendment having retrospect
i've operation, and, rs il fearing that
amid the madness of party rage some
bubble might be resorted to for giving
to some law or amendment au er posf
tacto operation, it is provided that "by no
SHIFT or deUica' shall this thing be done.
No other right of the neoDle is so sacradIv