, 1870-07-19
The New ConatfxHtIon.

To The Editor Of The Ch.aaga I16une;
In your. issue os the stb inst was.
published my communication OF tho 9Th
inst, with an editorial In .epty the1eto, which
does not seem to mo to decide The question In
volyed. have again made 3 careful, o1amina-
ton Of section Il OF the Schedule, and Of the
~. q KsEssct, and, as heretoforo, havo no
d.1l5t Of the meaning Of tho section and intent
Of the convention; and know that rny vieva
On this question aFa spproved BY some able
members Of the legal p1ofassion-
1t il the manifest and admitted intention
that the Articles and Sections sepasately sub
mittcd, except minority representation, or such
Of them As should receive majority OF vo;ss
polled, should go into edect-become The gu
Prcne Law Of the State, in any erent-whethur
the majority Of votes polled should be for g.,
much Of the constitution a. NOT separately
submitted. OF Against tho sane. When go into
ede1t? We arc to determine this, cops!darinc
it, not from the standpoint Of the result Of the
vote asce1tained but from the standpoint aud
with ths forecaBt OF the convention.
There Was an intent On the part OF the con-
yention as 70 the time whom they should be-
come operative, as the supreme 1xw OF the
state. Mas that time in ADv way to Ia depan-
dent On the adoption or rejection Of 70 much
OF the constitution Il Was not separately Sub
u1tted-in the one event to be tie 3sh Of Au-
gust, and In the other, Immediately On their
adoption II the time when they we're to 70
in force waa designed to be contingent On such
event, would it not hase been 90 e1presso3,
and not left to vague Inference? conclude
tue tlne Tas not to he contingent, but the
same In any event. It certainly was to be i'm
,t'ettafeay, on adoption, IN case OF rejection Of
the part not separately submitted, and Why
not Immediately in cass OF adoption OF tho
pat not separately submitted They were to
become part OF the - constitution Of this
State" You say "Wh.s constitution I Mau-
aestly the new coustitution II adopted, other
wise lts adoption would destroy them" You
gava faulty reasou. You.forGet that the new
consultation was not submitted for adoption or
rejection ~ an entsrrty, but IN parts-th.t in
constitution" We, voted, not for the whole
conAsitut,on, butt only a. mn,h
I thereof a. was not separssely submitted. HOW
aaould the success Of one part Of the ticket
ne adoPuon Of one part OF tho constitution.
destroy them."-tho separately submitted
articles and sections? Tho adoption Of al
the parts il the will Of the people expressed It
one time on the several parts. They are con-
currently adopted. and atand, by virtue Of tho
adoption, ss tho supremelaw Of the State in
nowse to be Affected By the time when the
several parts go in force We must not con-
found the import Of adoption with that OF
going into effect, az you seem to have done.
No senhible man will ieuy that the convention
might have expressly provided that one p.tt
OF tho constitution should SO into effect On
one Gay. and the residue on another, II =
Just Inference from the language thereof, that
the constitution was intended 10 to 60 into
enect. why may We not make such inference.
thongh It i not 20 provided in express words
We have, and aIe 10 have. At all times, con-
shsution--need not call It ''old or new -
tho same. We design to have asw
constitution, and determine what it shall
be. provide that .ome par:s shall be in f,rce
On aud after the adoption, others on and after
august .; and when tie change is complete.
ne lave completely now constitution. Tho
prosieions will stand togethor-noae vii
destroy the othcre.
AGAIN you say: . Nor is il possible for them
to have any effect before it il officials known
.nat aa .neS *eto adopted !; and get you admit, as
you must, that the constitution Of 1873, by its
terms, and in fact, went in fo1co more than
twenty daya before the time within which The
| result was required to DO ascertain and pr,,-
claimed, IN other words - officially known =
INT sou follow up that admission bs sophisu,
to the effect. that the articles Of the couatitu
sion Of 1913, separately submitted. also want
into effect April !, 1s48 and At the same time
with the main body OF the constitution. You
fail to note why this is so: that j, was ex-
pressly dcelared BY the schedule Of 1915 that If
The separate articles received = majority Of the
votes polled, they should become part Of
that constitution, not "a part Of the const,t,,-
tion Of this State" Having suchmajosisr, they
must have failed, il the part not separately
submitted had been defeated. Not 70 with the
a1ticles and SECTIONS OF tho constitution Of
1870 separately submitted.
Again, tho convention followed substantially
the language Of tie old constitution, except
Where it WAS intended to mako some change.
add to, or subtract tharefrom. The Schedule
Of tho constitution OF 184a roatla: ar il ANAL
appear that majority OF all the votes polled
arc for the adoption OF this constitution. il
shall be the supreme law OF the land from anl
after the frrt day Of April, 1848' Ths
Schedule Of the constitution of 1870 reads:
III il appeara that 4 mAjoritr of the votes
polled nre for the new constitution, then 50
much Of his constitution AZ teas not separ-
dftty submitted To Le rolets on Ig articAs aud
sections, shall be the supreme law OF tho State
Of Illinois, on and after tbs 6th .lay OF August,
1870" suppose this change of language ~ IT,
to 40 much, &C., WAS for purpose, and
suppose also when tho language concerning
the separately submitted articles and Bectious
adopted, is changed from tAhalI become
part OF this constitution" to '.shall become 4
part Of the constitution Of ilis State" there
war : pu1pote, and the meaning different. fx
ri termtns. I think sufficient reason Hhr
il should have been intended the separately
submitted articles and sections should 20 ID
force Immediately on adoptiou-that By pro-
hibition OF municipal subscriptions to rails
tuAdB further fraudulent imposi&ions on the
people might At once be prevented. In con-
clusion chcerfully recommend to you care
ful study OF section II Of the Schedule, and IL
I An wrong iu nly conclusions shall be glsd to
be successfully controvett d BY Jour reply.
Constant READER.
SYCAMORE. H., July Is, 1870.