The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1873-05-09


varying the compensation for services Of
Senators and Representatives shall take
effect until an election Of the represents
tivess shall have interviewed"
Only six OF the thirteen States voted
tor the proposition and It failed Of ratih.
cation. The Ohio Legislature, Just before
its adjournment, passed.a resolution rati.
tying this old amendment, thus raising tho
question whether 1t Is still before the
States for adoption, according TO the fifth
article of the Constitution, or whether
action upon it has been barred by lapse
OF time. The fifth article Of the Const-
tuition provides that amendments present.
Cd in a prescribed way " shall be valid to
all intents and purposes as part Of this
Constitution 'clIen ratified by the Legisla'
lures Of thrco.iourths of the several States,
orby conventions in three.fourths there.
Of" Ii Is assumed that there is therefore
no limit TO the time in which the several
States may act upon the proposed amend.
ment; that 1t still stands as q proposal to
be acted upon at uny time SO long as the
Union exists, and that Wlen threc.iourths
o the States shall ratily it, it shall be
valih,as palt Of the Constitution.
This Is the construction upon which the
Ohio Legislature acted. But the New
York R5It-usually very careful and cor
rect in It's opinions-thinks this view er'
roneous. Itsays the words "whcn rati-
fed" instead Of allowing indefinite time
for ratification only fix the point OF pro-
cedure at which the amendment becomes
part OF the constitution. These words
merely indicate that it shall be after q
given number Of States huyC ratified. Yet
the Post does not show anything that
really limits the time within which the
ratification must take place. 1t argues
that Legislature having once acted can
not reconsider, and assumes Though ii
does not state as fact that the other
sevcn States acted adversely upon the
amendment Of 1850, that it was therefore
rejected and like rejected bill was dead.
Suppose enough Of those States to make
three.iourths with the six ratilyipg simply
failed 10 acI, when would their right to
do so lspseG Would it be in one year, in
ten OF in one hundred! We are aware
OF nothing that limits it. Nor can we
quite assent 10 the proposition that the
action Of legislature on an amendment
once taken Is irrevocablC. The puposc
o!ihe submission is TO have an expression
of the will Of the legislatures. The latest
legislation Is always the law, ard il is
reasonable that the latest action Of such q
body on q constitutional amendment en-.
bodies its will. Public sentiment changes
ind legislative opinion changes; and while
other considerations permit revision Of
legislative action, 1t seems 10 us the real
object OF asking for it is best obtained by
allowing such revision. There must be
point at which this discretion ends. It
would defeat the objects OF the constitn-
tional provision II States were allowed to
Withdraw their assent al pleasure after q
ratification was complete; but up TO the
time tue last one Of the requisite three
tourths has been obtained there seems to
be no good reason why legislature may
not reconsider. When the three.iourlhs
are in, the compact is closed and noneOa
withdraw from II. II the seven States
or any Of them originally acted adversely
on the amendment of 80, may they not
yet reconsider and adopt ii? II not, why
not? In a parliamentary body when a
measure is passed, it is hedged round by
arbitrary rules which arc necessary to
prevent delay in reaching result and TO
close the question within reasonable
period. The votes must be cast at once
and u reconsideration can be had only
within limited period. 1t docs not seem
TO be SO in the present case. No rcgula-
tons are provided. either rs to the period
within which a proposition must be dis
posed OF or as TO the power Of legisla.
ture 10 reconsider Arc there any rules
OF construction, or any precedents, thar
can be held 10 furnish a law authoritative
enough to govern in such case? There
Is one thing that seems to fix natural
limit to the endurance Of an unratiiied
proposition for amendment. When an
amendment Is proposed by Congress its
particular number and place in the
Constitution are assigned 1t. 1t
would be incongruous to have sub
Sequent amendment ratified before the
earlier one had been and have it come In
afterwards. The confusion thus created
might be held to be only verbal
it might not afford ground enough 10
limi. the legislative option but It
would be u convenient and reasonable
regulation to say thRt no proposition
should be open to the action OF the legis-
laturcs after another proposition subse-
quently submitted had been ratified by
the requisite three.lourths. As matters
stand, however, we don't see but the
amendment Of 1880 Is still open to ratifl-
CATION and Just now VIC believe the sentI.
meEt Of the country will endorse il with
the next thing 10 uuanimity.