The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1882-07-25


any one of them might seem TO 90 further ihan
was required by the case be- was considering. y
can give no wider application 10 the prece'isni
than il has in itself A precedent. whether judi
cial or otherwise, is the action taken. and not
the language used by any one with reference 60
such action.
In every case cited by the Econoaaia q change
in State Constitution, which have exam
ined-and we have examined all excerpt enc
where the legality of the action taken has lss'en
in question the first Constitution contained No
provision at all for Convention Cor it, general
revision or for the adoption OF a New Consiiiu-
ton, although it contained regulations a 60 The
manner in which specific amendments might Be
made by the Legislature IL was very properly
held in each case that the mere failure Il The
Constitution 10 provide fr such Convention
did not take away the right Of the people b.
hold one, and that the power Of providing
method Of calling "A Convention was vested in
the law making body namely, the Legislature
But in no case was il held that where the meiils
for calling Convention is specified in the exist
ing Constitution, the Legislature can adopt dit
ferent method.
In the Rhode Island case il was held that the
power of initiating a change 81 Constitution
was vested in the Legislature, and not IN the
body of the people, and that NO legal steps could
be taken to change the Constitution without the
authority of the Legislature II then the exer-
else of this right is subject to legislative Tesuia
ton. certainly it is subject To Constitutional reg
ulaiion.
The New York case, on which the Eoenoaaisf
especially relies, and TO which Charles O'Connor
referred, was this: The Constitution Of New
York OF 1921 contained regulations n 60 the
manner in which legislative amendments thereto
might be made, but contained No provision ~ 10
its general revision, and nothing Al al a 10 the
calling of a Convention, neither providing for
nor prohibiting it. The question was whether a
Convention could be held, and in what manner
it should be called. Ii was decided that Con
vention could be, held and that the Legislature
should provide for calling IT, 50 it was IN the
Massachusetts case, the Missouri case. and the
Louisiana case In each of ihrm there was Moth
ing said about "A general revision of the Cansti-
tuition; il neither provided for nor prohibited,
consequently the Legislature might provide for
calling Convention in any proper manner
In the Delaware and Maryland Constitutions
of 1916, the sections which prohibit their aliera-
ton except in a certain manner, have reference
to alterations by legislative amendments only,
and have no application Ia the general revisiun
of the Constitution. on which subjects those
Constitutions contained nothing, and therefore
the manner of calling a Convention for general
revision of the Constitution might be fixed by
the law making body in each State
What the Indiana was. we do not know
but having shown, We think, in the preceding
five cases, that the Ecohomist is mistaken in the
effect and application Of It's precedents, we pre-
sumo that il we were accurately informed as to
the Indiana case, the same thing would appear
in that.
As to the Michigan case, il seems bat this ,
That Territory framed a Constitution for admis-
sion to The Union as a State, which Constitution
il was claimed, was made without proper
authority from Congress; this action was not
sustained as legal in ITSELF but The whole matter
being within the power of Congress, curative
act framed by Congress legalizing the action
already taken.
The mention by the Econontst af the old arfi-
Giles OF confederation between the original States
we think, is unfortunate The articles of con
federation could only be amended in certain
way, and it was not attempted to amend them in
any other way. A Constitution was framed, and
upon its ratification by more than two-thirds of
the States the former confederation was dissolved
and the new one was formed; but there was no
claim made that the majority could impose the
New Constitution on the minority, for il was not
sought Ia make it operative any State without
its own voluntary acceptance While we are on
the Federal Constitution, would like 10 have
the opinion of the Economist upon some Of It's
provisions.
That instrument provides that amendments
shall be proposed hy4wo thirds Of both Houses
of Congress ar 10y a Convention called ON appli
cation of iwo-thrds of the States, and the
amendments shall he ratified by three fDurths Of
the States; also, that no State. without its con
sent, shall be deprived Of its equal suffrage in
the Senate
Does The Economist hold that a mere majority
OF Congress and of The States can amend the
Constitution as it may please them? Does il
hold that any majority of Congress, or of the
STATES. or oi the people of The United States, can
lawfully deprive the State of Florida al equal
suffrage in The Senate witlrou her own CONSENT
We have gone more at length into this matter
than we usually care 10 do in an editorial hut
ish Ia show with what kind Of a chart the
EcoaoD'is is inviting the people OF this State 10
embark all their present prosperity an un
known sea
Our ST. Augustine contemporary, as
will be seen above, completely exposes
the pretended authorities cited by Mr..
Campbell aud the Economist in support
of the claim that Constitutional Con
vention can be legally called otherwise
than as provided by the present Consti-
tuition for which the editor of the Ecoao-
mist voted. The so-called precedents"
are not applicable-they relate "to cases
in no way analogous to Florida. The
editor of the Weekly, who is himself a
prominent lawyer, has examined all the
"precedents relied on save one, that of
Indiana, and finds as so clearly stat ed by
him. Indiana is in the same category as
the others; it is no precedent. The Con-
stitution of 1916, on which Indiana was
admitted into the Union, contained no
f. 81