New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1873-11-05
an yupORyAET QUESTION.

The action Of the Constitutional Convention
in Pennsylvania, as described in the letter
which we printed yesterday, is likely to be
hotly debated. The Ring which has so long
ruled the State by the agency of fraudulent
voting and false counting in Philadelphia,
has never concerned itself greatly about tie
doings OF the Convention. Having an assured
confidence in "the machinp,n it has cOmforted
itself with the reflection that no amendments
could be adopted without IFS permission; and
so it has allowed the delegates to amuse
themselves with debate, and go on with their
work of framing a new constitution unob-
structed. On the eve of adjournment, how
ever, the Convention sprung a mine. An
ordinance was passed providing for the sub
mission Of the new constitution at special
election on the 10Th of December, and Great
ing special commission to supervise the
vote in Philadelphia. Ali the apparatus OF
fraud which has hitherto given the Ring an
absolute control of the city IS swept away
and for the first time in many years the
citizens are to be allowed 10 express their
wishes at the polls. We have learned not to
be sanguine Of the results OF proposed re-
forms, but it does seem as il the Convention
had at last devised way of purifying
Pennsylvania.
The Ring now urges Gov. Hartranf 70 de-
clare by proclamation that the special election
must be held under the existing election laws
and by the old machinery, and calls upon the
courts TO enjOin the new commission from
acting. The controversy thus raised becomes
of the very highest Importance. 1t touches
the fundamental principles of government,
and brings at once into sharp conflict two
Opposing theories of the powers of cOnstitu-
tonal conventions which regards tho
Convention as sovereign body, the other
which denies it all power of legislation and
looks upon it merely as an advisory commit
tee. If there were any dispute as to whether
a Convention had the power TO override the
explicit instructions of the Legislature, we
should experience little difficulty in finding an
answer. But the existing election laws of
PENNSYLVANIA cannot rightly be considered as
in conflict with the ordinance Of the Conven-
ton. They were not framed with reference
to any such emergency as this. They regulate
merely the choice of certain specified officers
under the Constitution. A Convention is
always, so to speak, quasi-revolutionary
body, and its action cannot be governed by
the strict rules intended for very different
state of affairs. In almost every case in which
new constitution has been submitted to the
vote of the people in any of tho United States
(and there have been about eighty such cases),
the provision for submission has been made
by the Convention itself. If precedent, there
fore has any force, the action of the Pennsyl
vania Convention is strictly correct, and any
interference on the part Of the Governor would
be usurpation.
OF the validity of popular election held
under the direction of the Convention there
could be no question. The vote in such
case would be the action of the soyer-
eign body exercising its inherent right to
establish or change the fundamental law, and
no statute could control it. Any opposition to
the proposed method of voting is merely the
factious resistance of dishonest politicians to
plan which threatens to interfere with their
tenure of power. 1t is frank confession that
they mean TO defeat by fraud what they know
to be the will of the people. Gov. Hartranft
must be bold man if he yields to their de-
mands,