Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1873-06-11
constitutional Changes.

OOUStlIulIOudl SuduStS.
The Rutland Herald very unnecessaril
took to itself the few words, in our column
last week, concerning a particular metho(
of amending the Constitution of the State
We do not see how We could have " willfully
misrepresented - the Herald's position, wher
We neither mentioned the name OF that pa
per, nor stated or criticised the position
which we understand it to take. We must
therefore, perforce be tossed upon the diem
mas other horn. which is that We g arc
greatly misinformed upon the whole sub
ject." However, the adjectives and syno-
nyms of our courteous and erudte neighbor
ened, and we take courage.
Seriously, the proposition of the Herald
land if it is here misrepresented, 1t IS not
dore willfully,) is this: that the Legislature
mont, the question whether or not there
shall be Convention to revise the COnstltU-
tion,-may provide for the election of dele
gates to such Convention, should the people
decide the Question in the affirmative, and
may determine the time for the meeting OF
tie Conyention-and that the Constitution
framed by this Convention, when ratified by
vote of the people of the State, would take
the place of the present Constitution, and
thus become the fundamental law. Finally,
that this would not be revolutionary pro-
ceeding, but ID accordance with the princi-
pies of constitutional law. All of which we
believe to be sound doctrine.
The State Constitutions first adopted were
of three classes first, those that made no
provision for revision or amendment; second,
those that prescribed certain ways, and for
babe all other ways; and third, those that
specially point out a mode, but did not
in terms restrict to that particular mode.
Constitutions of the first class have been
amended by the people in their sovereign
capacity, and none of them now remain.
Those of the second class have, some of them,
been amended in the ways forbidden; IN
these cases the action was revolutionary,
though in none, fortunately, were disorders
or violence the result. Those of the third
class have been amended or revised in many
cases, both in the modes especially author
lied, and in other ways, and the action has
not been deemed in either case revolutionary.
The best lawyers of Massachusetts, thought
her Convention of 1853 legal, although there
was no provision in the Constitution for
calling it. The New York Convention of
1916 stood on the same footing, and her
present Constitution depends for its power
on the legality of that Convention.
Still, it is evident that the trainers Of our
Council of Censors and the attendant Con-
vention sufficient for amending our Consti-
tuition, and that the Convention of 1870
designed to substitute the present arrange
ment for the old, as one furnishing an ample
opportunity for needed alterations. There
comes now and then among the people de
sire for some new provision, and the recur-
ring periods of amendment allow such de-
haste; and it was so plainly the only method
of amendment had in view, that the specific
provision for that method is almost entitled
10 be held restrictive instead of permissive.
By the custom of nearly hundred years,
and by the conservative character of our
people, we think a movement for a mere
amendment without waiting for the steps
set down in the Constitution itself, would
prove abortive. and thus be as utterly hope
less as though it were plainly revolutionary.
As stated above, we hold that the people
have lawful right to revise their COnstltu-
ton in other ways than those laid down i'll
the instrument itself, where those laid down
are permissive only. But they must exer-
else this right with the elaboration and
guards that beft dealing with 50 grave ques-
tions as laying the very foundation of gov
Ornamental system. The danger is far greater
of making our whole system unstable by the
practice of treating constitutions as instru
ments to be changed at the will of every
temporary majority, than of great suffering
from the delays of a plan so g cumbrous
Intellectual and time consuming y as our OWL
even. There should be a clearly defined dc
sire on the part of majority of the people
for substantial change before VIC step GU
of the beaten paths. There are, for instance
certain changes which we should like to Sc
made in the Constitution, some Of them &C
ceptable to majority of the people of The
State very likely, others doubtless acceptable
to a minority only. The country is doins
very well without them, though, and it will
not be such an age to wait, if we proceed
only in the line specially prescribed in tn
Constitution. Ia 1880 the Legislature ma,
propose amendments, and few years O
discussion even prior to that time will not b
amiss; for it is much better that the Constr
tuition express the will of the whole peopl
than of party The needs of the tim
might demand an immediate and radica
change before that time; in that case W
hold to the lawful right of the people t
make it: but we remember that 90 a chang
IN the fundamental law, when not made il
the form which that law has prescribed
must always be a work of the utmost deli
cacy. Under any other form of government
than our own, it could amount to nothin
less than revolution"
There are in the historical part of til
Heralds discussion, one or two things tina
we think it is mistaken about, but they
not substantially affect its argument. On
thing more, the remark of the FREEMAN
that the plan of changing the Constitutio
by direct vote of the people, whenever til
Legislature should submit an amendment
was mere vagary, seems to have troubled on
neighbor. Every few lines he stops an
oives that word vagarv - a sbaka M