New-York tribune., 1874-12-22
judgment, may seem most appropriate or convenient.

of this series go into effect there will remain in tho
instrument an incidental provision referring to
persons of color not taxed" which will not be in
harmony with its general tenor; nor is it to be de-
MED that, in practice, this very provision may havo
some actual operation. But that ncongruity is Of
the most triing nature in itself, and it would exist
by forco of the XVIII Amendment to tho Federal
Constitution even if these State amendments were
all rejected. Besides, it can never he Of any sub
stantial consequence.
Ii is understood that the proposed amendments 10
the eth Article were actually adopted IN precisely
tie same terms by the concurrent resolutions OF
lS'3 and 1874; but question is made concerning the
manner in which they were Published.
One OF these amendments was a new sixth sec
tioD. 1t contained list of certain State canals
with various directions concerning Them This Sc
ues originated in the Senate of 1873. and on their
being sent TO the assembly the latter inserted i'll the
list the Black River Canal = but after considerable
intercourse between tue Houses concerning this adj
dit;On the Assembly receded from its proposal.
Through some accident or inadvertencc this re-
scnded proposal of the Assembly found its way into
the copy of the amendments which was furnished
for publication in the session laws of 1S'3and by the
State printer of that ycai, and the amendments
were printed accordingly. The error in the printed
statuc-book Is immatcrial; more importance may
attach to the in the publication by the State
printer. The Constitution of 1916, Section 13. en-
joins that any amendments agreed to by Senate
and Assembly, az those in question WERE shall be
published for three months previous to the next
general election of Senator's" And it is srrmiscd
that this accidental Interpolation in the State paper
may he regarded having prevented the electors OF
1919 from receiving such full and perfect notice OF
the projected measures as was contemplated by the
fundamental law. Some persons have suggested
that this blemsh in the published notice may i'll
volve au entire defeat OF the Iclorms projected by
this series There is no just ground for this aprc-
hcnsiOn. The additional words did not impair tho
notice. The object was to awaken among the pco-
plo adequate attention to the proposed changes
prior to their choice of representatives; and this
was done. In respect to each canal specified in the
list, the proposed regulations presented distinct
and separate question, which on the ultimate sub
mission to the people for ratification might we'll
have been separately approved or rejected. This
shows that the item erroneou7ly suncra!d2d could
not have miscd. If something had been omitted,
as for instance one of the canals actually named by
the legislative bodies. q different view might per-
haps, be taken; bat the addition did not leave the
electOr unwarne1, and consequently it worked no
mischief 1t is familiar dictate of common sense
fully recognized in the strctcs practical codes that
anything which gives all requisite information, and
involves injuriously misleading foreign adnxturc,
is sufficient Us notice. In department. of legal
proceedings is technical nicely less regarded; on
question of notice. the substance is alone looked to.
Another consideration lends strength to this vicw
and is of itself an additional and conclusive
answer to the objection. \ punc;ilOus observance
of forms can never be insisted unless they
arc prescribed in the law governing the case;
and by turning to tho Constitution we find
the requisite imposed is simply that the amendments
bo published for three mon;hs' The Legislature
is not required to make any rule or law as to the
publication or to take any action respecting it, nor
is the duty of publishing cnjoncd upon any paricu-
lar officer. No form OF method or place Or Ins.rIl-
ment of publication is specified. That an exact copy
shall be given is not stated; indeed giving out snch
copy without anncXing TO it some further state
ment would hardly convey such information IA
would conform to any suppOsablc intent, yet Ger
tany no particular accompanying statement is pre-
scribcd The word for is the only pointcl thing
in the Injunction, and that merely implies that in
case tho mode of publication reSortcd to should be
in its nature continuous, there should not be a
dscOntnuancc during the prescribed ttrin-that Is
to say, if the print selected should be daily,
weekly or monthly 40. that the notice should not
be omitted at any tIlIo unring the term. In short.
the whole provision Is in tho most general terms and
it cannot be regarded as requiring moro than that
there shall be full and fair notification to the peO-
pic Of the measure i'll progress continuously pro-
mugated for three successive months. This, OF
course, was mpliedly required to be given in some
of the methods in common use for similar purposes
at the time and that the method should be apt to the
end in view and reasonably adequate to its
plishmcnt / think this was DONE Such an evil
IDENTIFY immatcrial and wholly incoDscqncntial inter
notation in the published notice, accidentally made
by an official copyst or BY the printer should not be
permitted to annul public act rciteIatediy sane
toned by the people after long intervals of dcbera-
tion twice through their representatives and finally
by themselves Individually and directly in their
sovereign capacity. Had that particular canal been
named in the amendment rs adopted i'll 1873 it is
evident for reasons before stated that the LcGisla-
turc of 1874 might have stricken it out of the list
without prejudice to the rest of the section.
Think there is no force in either objection and,
upon the whole, am persuaded that all the amend
ments which the people have ratified were duly sub
mitted to them in conformity with the 18Th
Article and have thereby become parts of the Con-
stitutiOn.
II. Tie action of the legislative bodies in 1873,
and the publication made or notice given by the
state Printer are unimportant and immaterial, I'M
less it is to be assumed in opposition to what nave
stated at tho outset that the Constitution OF 1916
cannot be amended OF varied from except in the
method proyided by ITSELF Let us see whether this
he the law. The supreme power at every point OF
time resides in that portion of the people who by
the then existing fundamental law possess the
elective franchise They constitute in politco-legal
term,nology the People: they are the State. writ
rem constitutions differ essentially from ordinary
and temporarylaws in this only t. e. that the latter
are enacted by representative agency OF limited
nowers while the former emanatc from the People
themselves in the exercise Of their original and per-
sonal right as individual members OF that political
and social unit, the State When enacting Constl'
~" l. %. iannn