The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1879-08-13
] written Constitutions Worthless.

GroKag FrrzHUGH, Virginia writer on
e sociology.O always maintained that writ
ten constitutions were worthless. DIE.
TooXss recently said that "the lfedera']
Constitution has no power within Itself 70
enforce i.self"; meaning, not what his
CRITICS suppose, that the central Government
was weak, but that the Constitution was I'M
notent to restrain the hand OF that 1rreslstl'
ble Government. He meant what MI. f11z-
HUGH did.
Now we find the Chicago Times taking
the same position. 1t SAYS:
One Of The most convincing proofs OF
rho useIessness and practical Worthlessncss
ne what are called written CONSTITUTIONS IS
eyhibited in the frequent radical changes
in such enactments that have been the iash, ,
inn in America. Obviously, The polit'cai
constitution OF any country ought 10 De as
stable and Interchangeable as the character
OF its people. This is the case WIN
unwritten constitutions. Being the out
Growth of the history and character
OF the people, and depending las every
constitution, written or unWrlttcn, husl
depend) wholly on the character OF soclety
for their maintenance, they are only llaole
TO change as the character ana conuilioh vi
the people change. In measure me same
is no doubt true OF written consul uCion'
The notion that it is law Whlch eau un'
deroo change only by enactment III par
t;oui,r wav formally prescribed by enact
ment is a gross delusion which facts con-
tradict on almost every page OF American
history during the last ninety years. =
What is the import OF these tendencies
Plainly. it is the eventual abolition or SUI
ner.cdure of 4 legislative constitution estaD-
iished in an enacted prescription by one
performing constitutional functions WITH
ont prescription. Doubtless the CHIEF, II
not the only, merit OF n written constitution
is in its express and positive limitations
upon the legislative organ. But such lithi-
tations, however wisely framed, are. obfI-
ously OF little use If a " constitutional con-
vention," every five years, can change OF
abolish them. And il such an Assembly,
every five or ten years, may enact ah
entire code of laws for the succeeding
five or ten years, OF what possible
utility or desirablity is any other ic?s'
lative body There is growing OPINION
that about once in five years is as often as
anv State Legislature can be OF any fcal
service to the people. Why, then, may not
the constitutional convention benefcEtliy
supersede the other legislative body alto
retber? What Commonwealth realizes any
need OF this double legislative arrange"
ment-a constitutional convention or par
lament of the people every five or ten
years to enact new code OF laws and an
Intervening legislative assembly every one
or two wears to enact an additional mass OF
crude and il-digested statutory law?
In the degree that an organic enactment
becomes code it puts off the character OF Il
constitution, and in the same degree the So
called constitutional convention becomes i
legislative convention, assuming ana eAer-
cisinr the legislative function. 1t is 4 rep
tentative assembly Of the people not under
but over the written constitution-an as
semblv that is not bound by any written
local constitutional limitations whatever:
The only constitution by which it IS bound
ia that OF the nation. Subject to that, its
functions in their character and scope are
virtually those OF al unlimited parliament.