New-York tribune., 1869-06-07
TIE LNDLlNA RArLMcAIOM

The n. J. Times says that we originally
shared its doubts of the validity Of the alleged
Ratification by the Indiana Legislature of the
XVIII Amendment TO the Federal Constitu-
ton. IL Is true that we did not decide the
point before we had investigated it, but, we
submit, that neither implies vacillation nor
justiles rcproach. The Times seems still in the
fog. Let us see how it progresses therein:
Here is its Iestatcment of its positions
"Our contemporary misreprcscuts Ms. We have not
pronounced against the validity Of the Indiana rauca
ton What We have alleged is that the validity Of the
legislative action is open 10 doubt ana that being ques
onable I'm ts consttutionaty Judged by the letter OF
the local organic law, II viii DO unfortunate II Congress
hud Itself mpecd 10 make tho Indiana vote an essential
part OF the proceeding by which tho adoption OF the
amendment shall be declared completed. 1HE TRIBUNE
originally shared our doubts for on the l0th OF May
10 said, We confess that tho mysteries Of Indiana
legislation are too deep FOR as; adding, We prefer
10 await further details 10 tho whole H0rl procedure
before rejoicing over the adoption by another state.
When an inscriptions partlsanshp declared that lnd
must be counted among tho ratyng states or the
amendment would be lost the TRIBUNE discarded skep'
tcism and announced the ratification 20 be satisfactory
70 mind, however positive provision oi we state
Constitution with which the prOfesscd ratification con
cts something not to bo sct aside by mere partisan
decree. IT.. o.,
stltutI0n in yestug minority OF chor House Wtn the
power OF arrcstug legislation must be supposed TO be
expressed i'm the clause tsolL The fair presumption IS
that they did exactly what thcy intended 10 do; they
meant 20 impose check upon the majority ana they I'M
posed a. Because party Inconvenience results from its
application We arc Justified In casting 10 aside under
the pretcnso OF appealing 10 the spirit settled rule
In reasoning requires 20 accept the most obvious con
sructOn OF y CUntrOyertod polnt-neyer TO wander IN
search Of Interpretation when one sates us III tho
face. Yet this Is done when attempt Is made 20 dis
regard the letter OF tho Indiana law on the subject OF
quorums, and 10 adopt any 'splrtum interpretation
which party zeal happens TO suggest
Comments Jy The Tribune
When so much stress is laid on the letter
of the organic law" the positive provision
"of the Constitution the clause ITSELF &c,
&c, one would naturally infer that said
"letterp had been quoted critically scanned,
and its meaning established beyond reasonable
question. Yet we cannot rccollect or discover
that The Times has even afforded its readers
sight of "the letter. which it charges us with
"unscrupulous partisanship' in porvcrting
Let us do, then, what The Times has neglected.
Here is the letter:
Constitution of bdidnd-Art Nv. Le0isdiirc
tiL "Two.thirds OF each House shall constitute quo
rum to do business; but smaller number may meet al
from day TO day and compel the attendance OF alb
sent members"
-"AbseRt members" mind you not such rs
have resigned, for they are no part OF the Leg
islature. Though but ten attend, while ninety
absent themselves, the ten may meet, adjourn
from day to day, and issue valid process 20
compel the presence of tho ninety aOscntccs.