Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1873-06-12
HE RUTLAND HERALD
SATURDAY, JUNE Z, 1878.
AN INHERENT RIGHT OF THE
PEOPLE.

ference 10 the power Ol tuc POOPiO w
wise their constitution, or are greatly
misinformed upon the whole subject.
The Freeman says ''as for the plan Of
"changing the constitution by direct
"vote of the people whenever the Legis-
" lature should submit an amendment,
"it is the mere yagary of some mind
suddenly struck with the very old fact
"that no constitution of Vermont was
lever directly voted upon for adoption
cor rejection by the people" The Wind
sor Journal gravely announces that 1t IS
only a question for the voters OF 1883,
while still wiser editor says that he
"never heard of any other mode" of
altering or revising a constitution than
that provided for in our present consti-
tuition. The proposition that we made
was, that the people had the inherent
right, at any time, acting through regu-
larry authorized forms, to alter, amend
or revise their constitution. Is there any
doubt of this? If so, we Will endeayor
to make it plain by historical references.
1t is proper to say that we made no
claim that the constitution was not of
binding force; or that the fact that the
people had never voted upon the 'ques-
ton of its acceptance or rejection was
an argument in favor of its revision. In
an article upon the subject, we gave
brief historical resume of the constitu-
ton from 1777 to the present day, and
stated, incidentally, that Vermont was
an anomoly in this respect, at the same
time giving the reasons assigned by It's
trainers for not submitting it to the
final acceptance or rejection of the peo-
Pile.
1t will be noticed, by reference to
the constitution of Vermont, that it pre-
scribes no mode for its own revision.
The twenty-sixth article of the amend
ments, simply provides for the proposals
of amendments by the Legislature, ev-
cry ten years, and their submission, if
agreed upon by two successive Leglsla-
lures, to direct vote of the people.
This provides only for amendments.
Under it, constitutional convention, for
a general revision of the organic law,
cannot be called If the only power
possessed by the people over. the con-
stitution was confined in these narrow
limits, they might have a government
for.the people, of the people and by the
people, or not, as a changed condition
of affairs, or the march of progress
should determine. But back of this
all, and above all lies the inherent, sover-
eign power and right of the people, as
the Declaration of Independence has it,
"to alter and abolish" the existing frame
of government, ''and to institute new
government, laying its foundation on
"such principles, and organizing its
"powers in such form, as to them shall
:" seem most likely to effect their safety
land happiness" This very principle
was recognized in the celebrated Rhode
Island case, wherein the court says that
a State ''may, of its own will, and
"through the forms Of Iac, aohichtt pre-
"scri6es By its legislature, put on as many
different forms of government, not
conflicting with the constitution of
"the Union, as it chooses. It's p0,oer for
"that purpose Is ample, unQuestionable.
So much for the right and power of
the people and the unquestioned legali-
ty Of such a course. Perhaps, however,
this is one of vagarles, of which the
Freeman speaks, as it is certainly one
of the cases the other editor "never
heard of" 1t will be remembered that
the point of the decision in the case of
Dorr was that the convention which
framed the constition under which he
claimed TO act, had never been author
lied by vote of tire people on the
question submitted to them by the Leg
islature, while the other constitution,
which was sustained, was proposed and
adopted through such forms.
The constitution adopted by the
estate of Massachusetts, Bay" as it was
then called, in 1880, provided that the
question of revision should be submit
ted to the people in 1895, but contained
no other provision looking to that end
No convention was called that year, or
for quarter,of century thereafter
In 1890, however, the Legislature sub
mitted the question of the. calling of q
convention to the people. The act sub
hitting the question was approved by
the Governor June 90, the. vote of the
people was taken. August 81, the dele
gates were elected October 16, and the
convention assembled November Is,
all within less than five months We
refer to these dates to show that it is not
necessarily a work of years, but that, if
the people. of Vermont should decide
that revision of their constitution was
necessary and expedient, convention
could assemble within two years. Is it
then a 'question of the remote future, or,
rather, one of present interest and i'm
portance? But 10 continue in reference
to the precedent set by Massachusetts.
The convention of 1920 assembled, a
constitution was adopted, and ratified by
the people. An article was contained
therein providing for future amend
ments, substantially the same as the one
contained in our: constitution, except
that there an amendment" may be pro-
posed by any Legislature, while here it
can only be done once in'ten years. Not
one word was said in reference to future
revisions or constitutional conventions.
John Adams, Nathan Dane, Josiah
Quincy, Daniel Webster and the other
delegates had probably heard of some
other way of revising the constitution
except through amendments. proposed
by the Legislature, and did not, there
fore, deem the inherent right of the peo-
pie, acting 'tthrough the forms of law
which it prescribes by its Legislature, ="
to revise their organic law as a vagary
of some mind" The members of the