The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1870-11-23


a law which made the submission itself
unconstitutional Those who insist that
the amendment is void because it was
not submitted to all the qualified voters
are not nut to the test Of showing that
enough of voters who would have voted
10 defeat it were excluded. The amend
ment of the Constitution is an aftirma-
tive proposition requiring the presence
of all the forms and facts prescribed by
the Constitution for such amendment.
The great, the essential fact to the va
liditv OF the DISTINGUISHING amendment
is wanting-it was never submitted to
the people, to the qualified voters under
the Constitution. Think of Legisla-
ture, or even Convention, submitting
a clause disfranchising all except free
holders, and not permitting anybody
but irse-holders to vote upon 1t. Any
variety of cases OF similar import may
be suggested. The amendment to which
Mr.. Flick's is an amendment is no
amendment 1t is no part OF the Con-
stitution. 1t is void, wholly void, and
should be SO treated, as well to retrieve
the error of the past as to prevent, 10y
its example, wrong and error Tor the
future.
There is no greater wrong done to in.
dividuals, or to principle by 50 treating
that suppositious amendment as void,
and letting the constitutional voter ex-
ercise his legal right and putting parties
who may chance TO think it wrong and
who may want to try constitutional con.
illusions upon the subject, to the trouble
and expense of testing the questions in
the courts, than in shutting these men
out from the exercise of their constitu
tional right and putting them to that
trouble and expense, or waiting until
both parties shall solemnly, but under
the circumstances, | must think,farcical-
", bow them into the pale OF the Con-
stitution from which they have never
been excluded by the Constitution.
Having stated the facts and my own
views upon the subject refer to 3,
Cushing 573; State Us. Mcbride, 4 Mo.
3O3 and Collier Us. Frierson, "a Ala.
100 In this last case the court says:
1--WE entertain no doubt that.to change
the Constitution in any other mode than
by convention, every requiSition Which
is demanded by the instrument itself must
be Observed, and the omission Of any one is
fatal to the amendment" Here the
omission of the publication Of the Flick
amendment 1--WE scarcely deem any
argument necessary to enforce this pro
position. The Constitution is the su-
preme and paramount law. The mode
by which amendments are to be made
under it is clearly defined. 1t has been
said that certain acts are to be done Ger.
tain acquisitions are to be observed, be,
fore a change can be effected. But to
what purpose are those acts required or
those acquisitions enjoined if the LegiS'
latare or any department Of the govern.
ment can dispense ,oih hem' To do so
would be TO violate the instrument
which they are sworn to support, and
every principle of public law and sound
constitutional policy requires the courts
to pronounce against any amendment
which is not shown to have been made
in accordance with the rules prescribed
by the fundamental law" Cooley on
Con. Lin, p. 81.
There is no necessity for the Flick
Amendment In a just view there is
no necessity for any legislation, and the
right being constitutional, the party
hindered of his right has his remedies
at law. But because statutes should
always conform to the fundamental
law the law in this instance should be
, eonformed to the Constitution, eSpeci.
ally, now, when the intelligence and
amenities of both parties requireit The
DISTINGUISHING legislation has served its
day and purpose, and the people wish ii
to pass into oblivion, and the sooner
and the easier it goes there the more sat
isfactory will be the event. i.