New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1873-11-13
TIE PHILADELPHIA QUESTION.

The question as TO the vote on the Amended
Constitution of Pennsylvania is the cause Of
some excitement in Philadelphia but not of
more than it deserves. No more important
discussion of constitutional law has been
raised for long time. The Legislature in
1871 ordered the question of calling COnyen-
ton to be referred TO the people at the Octo-
Der election of that year. 1t was decided in
the affirmative and thercupOn the Legislature
proceeded in 1872 to provide for the election
of delegates and make other necessary ar
Engagements for carrying the wishes of the
people into effect. In the Act of 1872 how
ever the Legislature undertook to restrict the
Convention in its wOrk,-tirst by forbidding
it to make any alteration i'll the 1Xth Article
of the existing Constitution, commonly known
AZ the celebration of rights" or to create,
" establish, or submit any proposition for the
establishment of court or courts with ex-
elusive equity jurisdiction" and secondly by
insisting that the election to decide for or
against the adoption of the new Constitution
OF specific amendments should be conducted
"as the general elections of this Common
wealth are now by law conducted" The
Convention has disregarded all these restric-
these restric6Onsl In other words, is the
Legislature above the COnvent0nf
The answer, it seems to us, must be, No.
The Convention derives its authority not from
the Legislature, but directly from the people.
The people decided in 1871 that the COnstitu-
ton should be revised-deeidcd that question
simply, without limitation of any kind, without
restricting the Convention to the consideration
of any particular class of subjects, and without
even requiring that the instrument should be
submitted to them for approval. 1t is upon
that vote that the Convention rests its author
ity. IF now the Legislature can revise the
verdict of the people, cutting off an article
here aud imposing a condition there, it can
nuilify the verdict altogether. If it can for
bid the revision of one article it can forbid
the revision of another, and another, and
another. The credentials of the delegates who
framed the Federal Constitution in 1887 re-
stricted them to the consideration of certain
amendments to the old Articles of Confed-
GRAFTON. Every State except New-Jersey for
babe its representatives to go beyond certain
well-defned liue of duty. Yet the Convention
disregarded these limitations, and instead of
revising the Articles Of Confederation, re-
ported an entirely new instrument. In several
instances (twice in Pennsylvania) new consti-
tutions of the separate States have been
adopted and ordained by the Conventions
without reference to the people at all. In
1916 q question arose in New-York as to the
right OF the Legislature to make certain
enactment as to the election of delegates to
the Constitutional Convention, and the Legis-
lature asked the opinion of the full bench of
the Supreme Court. The judges said
Neither the calling of Convention, nor q
Convention ITSELF is q proceeding under the
Constitution. II is above and beyond the
Constitution. Instead of acting under the
I" forms and within the limits prescribed by
that instrument, the very business of Con-
"vention is to change those forms and bound
aries as the public interests may seem 10
require. a Convention is not q Government
measure, but movement of the people
"having for its object q. change, in whole or
in part, Of the existing form of government
We do net deny that there are strong argu-
meDts on the other side. The opposition to
the proposed method of taking the vote comes
from no. conscientious scruples. The most siren
uous OF the DIRECTORS must admit that if the
people should vote to accept the new Consti-
tuition their vote would wipe out all irrcpu
larites. and make the instrument beyond all
cavil the fundamental law of the Common
and VIC shall DO glad il the question is care.
fully aud thoroughly discussed before Penn.