Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1880-08-18

Talk Here and Elsewhere.
Perhaps nothing has been more in the
way of being pitched into " in this
region than the statements made by Mr..
Fifield as to the way in which the south
could do away with the constitutional
amendments if they gain control of the
Legislative and executive departments of
the general government.
There have been readings in public of
the requirements that the constitution
cannot be changed without the approval
of three-fourths of the states and audi.
ences have been asked to say if they
did not see there was no danger of that.
Mr.. McGettrick in his speech Thursday
evening enlarged on this, that it was a
novel idea for any lawyer of standing to
advance that the supreme court could de.
clare the constitution itself unconstitu-
tlonal; and secuted the thing as impossi.
Bile. But al! this is a misunderstanding or
evasion of the point
The point is just this that the supreme
court is the very place where it is to be
determined whether a proposed amend.
ment has actually become a part of the
constitution. The constitution cannot he
amended in violation of ITSELF and it is
for the supreme court to say whether the
amendment was adopted in accordance
with the terms laid down or whether if
was done in fraud or by force and is TINS
in fact no part of the constitution.
Just before the Cincinnati convention
there was Il case right to the point. In
diana had adopted certain amendments IN
her constitution as everybody not inside
democratic counsels supposed. But for
the purposes of their campaign it was
then thought by Indiana democrats (tbov
don't think so now it was best for
Indiana to hold her election in October.
So case was made and the democratic
supreme court Of that state declared that
the amendments were not a mart of tbe
constitution, had not been properly adopt
ed.
The case is parallel with the one AS to
the 18th, 18th and l5.N amendments nc to
the power of the court say whether thew
are part of the constitution. Now what
has been and is the democratic attitude rs
to the adoption of these amendments
Though Gen. Hancock says they "embody
the results of the war;" the democrats
kicked against them when they were
adopted, and although he saws thew are
" inviolable," they are so only as thew are
part of the constitution and what has
his party said about their having beer
properly adopted and what do demo-
Gratis say where they are not either de.
ceived or trying to deceive othersP
AS sample, the Connecticut democrats
in 1871, year after the last of ,ho
amendments had been adopted, had this
rs one of their planks to their platform:
" ReSotOed, That the fifteenth amend
ment, so CALLED, to the constitution of
the United States, is IN NO SENSE AN
AMENDMENT to the constitution, but is a
radical change thereof, striking at the
principle OF state rights which lies Mt the
base OF the compact formed by the yarious
states In the convention of 1893, and its
FORCED AND FRAUDULENT adoption at the
point OF the hayonet will be the deadliest
olow ever struck at the sovereignty of the
states and the liberties of the people"
The above may be taken AS the demo-
cratic doctrine of that time as to the legality
OF the adoption of the amendments. And
we have yet to see the southern democrats
who come forward and say 1--WE were
wrong as to their positions during the war
or since. And the democratic party does
not come up and say we were wrong. All
that we hear is 1--WE submitted" They
believe now in what they believed in then
and should they get the power they will
act On their belief just as far as they dare
to.
how is 1t now among those men whose
ideas will dominate in the democratic
party should it obtain complete success p
We find the following in the Free Press
credited to the Meridian Miss } Mercury
OF August 9TH as its comment on Gen.
Hancock's letter of acceptance:
1t would be doing gross injustice to the
great mind which conceived and dictated
utlls admirable letter of acceptance to in
sInuate that ne does not know and believe
Viia' "1eSe amendments are not sUbere then
Stana oy ne free NIL and consent of W,e
people, Ihey we're put there MAINLY NTH
ou' any Of Me substances of the forn1altties
PTeScTaoeo IN the instrument for It's amend.
MEM. 1t is history now that then mere
tdcSed ana PINNED on 10 The constitution bv
the odyonet' and no man knows that better
than Gen. Hancock. Yet, knowing this.
hnding them there part of the constitu-
ton and accepted by all the people without
regarding how they came there, Gen.
hancock having been Union soldier is no
doubt thoroughly loyal to them, and this
SpecsdS reference has Tie appearance OF
p@"dersmg to That northern sentiment 50
prevalent since the close of the war. en-.
bedded in the cant phrase that the "results
OF the war must be secured"
we need not say that this special allu.
sion Is dlstasteful to southern people Ia
the extent that they will not support him
heartily; but ii Was not The doreeable
ming 10 haue SGtd.as it revives disagreeable
recolletions of the time when, PROSTATE
and helpless in defeat, ii Uas incorporated
mo The organic law by force Of the 6ayonet
mat an inferior race, their late abiect
slaves are their political equals, and il
was done through motives of revenge to
humiliate them,
The southern people harbor no more
thought of rebelItng against the thirteenth.
fourteenth and fifteenth amendments TO the
constitution than Gen. Hancock, otherwise
they. might break with him upon this
special reference which mars bis otherwise