Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1869-12-24

not yet been had upon the proposed
amendment The argument against the
right of State to reconsider its approval
has been as ably presented in the New
York Times as in pny journal which has
come under our notice, and may be
summed up as follows
/. An amendment 10 the constitution
is an aetof thepeople Of the United States;
the people vote By States for convenience,
but not as States.
2. The amendment is submitted, moi to
the States, brit to the Legislature or to a
convention, as Congress may decide, and
this action is not the action Of the State,
but of the particular body clothed with
the necessary power by federal law.
8. When, therefore, Congress refers a
proposition to the Legislature, and that
body takes vote in its favor, its func-
ton, 50 far as this is concerned, is ended.
q. When the Legislature of New York
last year had once taken action, the ques-
ton submitted passed beyond its jurisdic-
ton, and the State cannot in any way or
by any process modify its action.
The above is the substance and very
nearly the exact language used by the
Times. 1t comedies a point we have never
seen admitted by those who deny the right
of withdrawal, viz, that, whether the
Legislature adopt or reject the amendment,
there can be no subsequent reconsidera-
ton. This is logically consistent, and re-
moves one Of the strongest objections
to the original assertion. 1t was at first
held that Legislature might law
fully reconsider a refusal, and subse-
quontly approve of proposed amend
ment but that having once approved it
could not reconsider and then reject. We
have thus given the shape in which this
question is presented to the people. We
do not propose to offer our own views up
on il now, says the New York Journal
Of Commerce, but to show that it in
wolves a principle of graver Importance
than the mere decision of the validity of
any given amendment to the national con-
siitution. Il is another blow aimed at the
rights Of the States, as such, and is de-
signed as further step in the centraliza-
ton Of power. In studying the funda-
mental law some persons never go beyond
the opening words, ''We the people of
the United States, and assume that State
limits are entirely swept away by the
original adoption of this instrument 1t
would be well for all such students to
follow the document to its close,
where this work of 'the people of the
United States is said to have been "done
in convention by the unanimous consent
Of the States present." and where it is
also said that ''the ratification of the con-
ventions of States shall be sufficient for
the establishment Of this Constitution be-
tween the States so ratifying the same ,
1t was for the people and in their name,
but was done by and between the States
as States. But even if we grant, as the
Times insists, that the amendments to the
great instrument are proposed to the peo-
pie and not to the States, in any recognition
Of their several rights as such, it does not
follow that their acceptance by legis-
lature, chosen before the proposition was
made, would be any fairer expression of
the peoples wishes than the action of a
similar body chosen in full view of the
question at issue. It strikes us, therefore,
that this assumption weakens the argu-
ment against reconsideration. If the
State as a State is a party to the amend
ment, then a consent of its lawful autho-
rity might be held TO be final as a com
pact; but if the people Of the State only
are consulted, then the reputation by sub
sequent action Of the people, of legisla-
tive consent given by a body chosen before
the proposition was made known to the
constituency, would have no little moral
force, especially if done at the first oppor-
tuniiy the people have of giving express
sion TO their views. In respect to the
question Of submission we believe that it
is to the people of the State through its
recognized State authority that the ratif-
cation is proposed and that the legality
Of a reconsideration depends on the ques-
ton how far the State as such has
any reserved right in the premises.
The question never would have come
up but for the indecent haste with which
political partisans attempted to forestall
the expression of the popular viii by urg-
ing the ratification in State Legislatures
chosen without reference TO any subject
Of such paramount importance. 1t is well
known that upon a fair popular vote on
IFS merits the proposition would be de
feated by an overwhelming majority.