The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1876-09-19
THE RIGHT OF CALLING C0NSTITU-
TIONAL CONVENTIONS.

Q arc ASKED IL tuelt - uhJ pANNS4Nh'
for calling constitutional convention,
where the constitution provides way for
its own amendment, Or where il 10 silent
upon the subject, except the recent case OF
Arlxansa7? We have, heretofore, written
to little purpose, if we have failed to show
that, without regard to ptocedout5, this
matter of making and altering con5ttu-
lions Is one inherent with the people and
eau be exercised at will. The right to SO
make and alter constitutions cannot be de-
MED, impaired or restricted. As our own
constitution puts it,: "rhe community
that is, the people -"hath IN undubltable,
inaliensble, and indeieasible right to re
" form or alter government IN such man
"ner as shall be, by that community
" Judged most conducive to the public
"woal" And the only restriction upon
this is, that the form of government must
not conflict with anything in tdc conattu
ton of the United States Bat to the PIE.
cedents, which are almost rs numerous re
there are states in the Union.
Without commenting on the fact Tat
every southern State in the Union has
constitution adopted IN mode different
from that prescribed in the constitution
which was supercc ted upon the further
fact thai ArkanGas, Missouri, Alatama and
North Carolina, have, recently, adopted
constitutions proposed by conventions
called for that purpose, while the.r former
constitutions contained provisions for
amendments similar to our own; or to the
fact that Michigan, West Virginia, and,
perhaps, other states, adopted their original
constitutions, without enabling acts from
congress, or through conventions called by
legitimate authority we will briefly cite
two precedents rs decisive Of the matter.
The original constitution of Massachu-
sets provided that, in 1906, the question
of calling a constitutional convention should
be submitted to shc people, and if two
thirds of the qualified voters should go de-
eide, convention should be called, etc.
The people refused to call q convention,
but, in 1920, without any provision thele.
for, the question was again submitted to
the people, and although only about one
quarter of the qualified voters voted on the
question, and less than thlee-q quarters Of
these in its favor, a convention was called,
an amended constitution proposed and rati-
fled by the people. Among the members
of this convention were John Adams,
Daniel Webster, Joseph Story, Nathan
Dane, William, Gray, Isaac Parker, sam
uel Hoar, Lemuel Shaw, and many others
of the most eminent of the jurists, law
yers and statesmen of that commonwealth,
and they never questioned the right tc
amend the constitution in the manner pro-
posed, and 1t has never been questioned ir
that state to this day.
The constitution of New York, in forct
in 1920, provided for its own amendmen
at stated times in the same manner as on
constitution provides-that is, for the adop
ton of proposed amendments by two Sue
cessive legislatures, and then by submis
sion to the people-yet, Notwithstanding
this provision, a convention was called b.
direct vote of the people, upon the sub
mission of the question to them by an &C
of the legislature, and the constitution wa
amended by such a convention, and thei
work ratified BY the people OF this coz
vention, Samuel Nelson, Martin Van Bu
rem, Chancellor Kent, Chief Justicea Aui
brose Spencer and Nathan Sanford, DAME
d. Tompkins, Samuel Young, Rufus King
Henry Wheaton and other eminent juriat
and statesmen were members, and all wer
agreed that their power to propose amend
ments, Or an entirely new constitution, wa
unquestionable. Their work is, to-day
the groundwork OF the constitution Of Me-
York, and its validity has never been Gale
in question. This, Of itself, is breeder
enough, and is decisive of the matter