The Plymouth weekly Democrat. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1860-1869, 1866-07-05
Che President Om tfle Amend.
ybsef3fS.


The message Of the President to the tw,
Houses Of Congress upon the subject o.
the amendments of the Constitutions indi
Gates plainly that he is Of the opinion thai
10 good would result from their adoption
The manner IN which he has done this wi
doubtless subject him TO some criticism
from the Journals of his own party; but
the question OF manner approaches SC
nearly to one OF taste merely, that, in the
absence of any standard Of taste in oihcia
documents, not much light can De expect
cd from the discussion. Parties in power
are wont to allow and encourage their
President in great freedom ofspeech whe n
he communicates in accordance with their
desires and policy and only inquire into
his title to communicate when they find
his views running counter 10 theirs. Not
being in favor Of the proposed amend
ments, the President certainly did not dc
wrong in publicly signifyins that the
Executive act Of certifying and transmit
ting copies Of the same to the authorities
Of the States, vas not 10 be taken as ev.>
dence of his Willingness that they should
he adopted.
The objection Of the President to the
adoption Of the amendments. upon the
ground that eleven of the States upon
whose people they ale designed to be op.
erative, were MT represented in the body
by which they We're elaborated, is certain
ly good one. 1t would be very dillca!t
70 find any sound principle upon which tho
people Of these States-and especially q;
such pf them rs should decline to ratiGy
the amendments--could be holden aS
bound by them. The fact that the
fresltcnt supported former amendment
ana used his power to compel its accep,
faDce by eleven States. may be good as
against him-casting doubt upon hi- con
sisten'y, but IS good for nothing as against
the principle ;''at mankind are only bound
N government by those laws to which thev
freely consent: ami is by the principle,
and not by the consistency Of the Presi-
dent, that the question is TO be finally
tried in that tribunal TO which all things
are ultimately submitted the tribunal OF
AL tine TO come.
The proposition that these eleven States
! have seeded, and resisted The arms Of the
Government, employed for their suhiec-
tlon aha that therefore these people have
t3rie!Jel the right % be consulted as to
tic laws which they are required - otev.
/ S one whose soundncss the future Will
have practically 70 decide. If it is cor
rect, The submission Of these amendments
to them IS simply farccal Ii they have
forfeited their rights, the question Is not
Tor them and if they have not forfeited
their rights, their ti.e to be consulted,
through their representatives in the elabo-
ration of the amendments, is 50 absolute
that it can not be taken away, nor the de-
feet OF their iorcible privation supplied
Ihe objection that the existing lcgsia>
tures, not having been elected with refer,
Cnce 10 this question, should not act upon
! it. ;s not without lis force. In all the
other countries OF the world, 10 which the
government partakes of popular charac-
ter-that is to say where there is a legis-
ative body whose members are chosen by
The peoplc-it is the iayar,able custom
when any change is proposed in the or.
gahic law, any alteration in the rules of
suffrage or representation, OF in the rea>
ton which parts or classes are to bear to
the whole, the question is first submitted
to the test Of popular election Why
the same thing should not be done in the
United States where We profess to have
carried the principles of popular governs
ment to their last application, it would be
hard, we suspect, to explain. ''Thc same
argument we are informed, as a reason
against this view Of the case-'apples to
Congress. This body should not origins
ate any important MEASURE. It's members
are elected to carry out such measures as
have been previously considered by and
approved by the people"
And why not apply to Congress? The
fallacy in the words We have quoted is in
the phrase important measure The
thing embodied in the amendment propos.
ed to the Constitution is more than an i'm.
pOrtant measure: it is an alteration Of the
organic law Of the laud The reason why
il ordinary cases, it is not needful to SUBJ
nit contemplated measures to the popular
decision, is because we have written
Constitution which processes to fix, and
should fix, limit to the Legislative discre
lion. The reason why in this case the
measure should have been so submitted, is
because the thing proposed to be done is
to transcend that limit. In the United
States the Constitution is the law. and the
acts of Congress are simply municipal
regulations with view to give executive
force to Its provisions. Here is an attempt
to confer new powers upon Congress
enlarge the field ofits discrction-and thai
there should be, under such circumstan
ces, fresh appeal to the formation and
source Of all Iower, is proposition, which
to dispute. IS to deny that the people have
n right to be consulted in that wherein
their most important rights add most es
sential liberties are involved Gin. Eng.
-->n~s <.sOss .. -
JUDICJoUs SELECTION. Good Fri
day. in a town in North Wales, an elderly