Daily Los Angeles herald., 1879-03-29
The Proposed New Constitution.
No. L.

No. 1.
Copies of the new Constitution
have now come to hand, and the
people have an opportunity Of ar
irving at some conclusion as to its
merits. 1t is by courtesy called q
Constitution, but may more prop
erly be styled Code of Political
Law. The Constitutions to which
the people of the several States
have hitherto been accustomed
have been concise, we'll written,
terse and clearly expressed instru-
ments. The draft presented by the
late Convention will fill a large
pamphlet. 1t is full of ambigui-
ties of language, verbose, involved
and often ungrammatical In ex.
preston.
Some few of its inoongruities aud
gross political fallacies, I propose
to point OUT In as brief a manner
as the subject will permit; and, with
view Of making the criticism In
some degree methodical, shall ad
dress myself to its several articles
in their order.
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS.
1t has been usual In all Am erlcan n
Constitutions, under the name of
Bill or Declaration OF Rights, to
Insert catalogue of certain uni
versally admitted popular rights
which have become sanctioned by
time and the practice Of free coun-
tries. The usage is good one, but
the Bill of Rights ouglls to bs con-
fined to the declaration of the
clearest and most generally admit
ted axioms Of free government,
lest the people be ROBBED by force
Of construction OF the very rights
intended by 1t to be secured.
In this respect, the Bill of Rights
Of our existing Constitution is a
model worthy of perpetual imita-
tion. That proposed by the late
Convention Is a repetition of the
old, with certain additions, which
are by no means Improvements.
The first of these additions (Sec. 8,
Art. l relates to the status of the
State of California towards the
American Union. From what
source did the Convention get the
power to define the relations of the
State to the other States or declare
1t to be "ap inseparable part of the
American Union?" That body was
elected to orevise the Constitution of
the State of California. and for that
purpose only.
The relations of State to the
Union are fixed and regulated by
the Federal Constitution, and
are not, aud cannot become, sub
jeoG to State control whether
through its Legislature or through
a Convention representing its SOW
ereign will.
The Convention, however, goes
much further and, in the same SEQ
tion, declares that "ths Constitu.
ton of the United States is the su.
preme tau of the land" Here is
States rights with vengeance.
No one ever before doubted that
the Federal Constitution was the
supreme law Of the land, but the
EXTREMIST States rights men, the
Macons. Randolphs aud Calhouns
of the past, supposed that this was
so, because that Constitution de
clared it to be so, and because the
several States, by ratifyIng it, had
agreed that 1t was so.
1t remained for the statesm en- of
the late Sacramento Convention TO
discover that our State was not an
iuseparable part of the Union, aud
that the Constitution of the United
States was not the supreme law of
the land unless, and until, so de.
clared by the Constitution of tue
State. For surely such must have
been the conviction of the trainers
Of the section referred to.
We cannot in any fairness pre-
sumo that body OF men so able,
patriotic aud economical would
have consumed time and the peo-
ple's money in preparing and di-
gesting u useless section. They
must have intended it to serve
some purpose, and, if SO, what pur
pose? Answer: the purpose ex-
pressed by the section itself, viz, of
making the State an inseparable