The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1882-06-07
THE AMENDMENTS.

A Republican Senator in Clear Paper "a
to Amending the Constitution.
The following letter We take from the In
dianapolis Journal. 1t is written by Gen
eral George H. Chapman, Republican Sena-
tor from this County. 1T agrees precisely
with the position Of the Sentinel upon the
matter, and completely blows to pieces the
theory of the Journal and Republican
pa pefs throughout the State:
To the Editor of the Indianapolis Journal
With no desire to trespass on your columns, or
upon the patience of your readers, assn me that
the importance OF the question whether the Re
port of the four proposed amendments 20 the
now pending before the people, may
plead my excuse for again speaking.
In your editorial of May 81 you indulge in a
line of reasoning in support of your position III
toe proposed amendments are now before the
people which has at least tie merit OF originality.
so far as 1 am advised. You say in
understand the Constitutional provi-
sons perfectly" f?) and under ordinary circum-
stances win permit their representative in the
cOrding TO these provisions, but lin cases of ex-
traOrdinary importance or exceptional C1rcum-
stances" will exercise their inherent soyer-
eighty" This seems 81 little misty, for the term
inherent sovereignty is very vague, and you
have failed TO disclose definitely what you mean
by IL. infer. however, that the idea you would
convey is that when the provisions OF the COnsttu
ton hinder or impede what those people, who
understand Constitutional provisions per-
fectiy, wish To accomplish, then those people
propose TO set such provisions al defiance This,
III successfully accomplished, is revolution IL
backed by small force it Is mobocTacy; If by a
large force il is rebellion. must be permitted
to doubt whether any considerable number OF
''the people" propose TO invoke this inherent
sovereignty just now.
You wish to know what member OF the Legis-
laturc is so clothed with the Divine right of
Kings" as TO refuse TO OBEY an instruction from
his constituency Ito agree 10 the amendments so
that the people In their primary capacity may
consider tneIn." Passing over the fuStian about
kings 1 answer that every member is entitled
TO exercise the Divine attribute Of conscience,
and has right, and IL Is lis duty, not to follow
any instruction from his constituency
which. in his Judgment, requires him 10 ais.
regard the Constitution. There is nothing in
the sixteenth article requiring the General AS
sembly to agree io'fa proposed amendment so
clear. imperative requirement is that the General
Assembly shall consider the merits of the PROPOSE
ton ana agree To IL, or net, according as their
judgment shall approve or condemn ii, aud that
constitutional provision binds the people as well
as the individual Legislators
pointed out In my former communication that
by the letter OF the Constitution the General AS
sembly had nothing whatever 70 do with the
question Of submission or no submission, for IL
two consecutive General Assemblies agree TO" q
AZ imperative duty 10 submit. There eau be no
without previous legislative adoption.
desire 10 cali attention To- another feature Of the
article. which further fOrJies this posi-
ton, IL that be possible.
WHAT does the Constitution say proposed
amendment shall be submitted 10 the electors
10 To ''ratify." To Eaufy what? Certainly
not the act of submitting it TO them, though you
say that is all the Legislature has TO do, and by
all there could be to ratifg. That
wound be childs play. What then? Why, 10
"ratify' or refuse to "ratify" the action of the
General Assemblies in agreeing to or adopting a
proposed amendment. In other words. ii the two
General Assemblies do agree 10 a proposed
electors a veto power through direct vote. The
Sixteenth Amendment is something of thorn III
your flesh. | don't wonder you have seized hold
OF q section of the bill of rights as banner for
your inherent sovereignty" doctrine, and when
that flsg goes down, | expect To zee you come mp
sinking with the Declaration of Independence or
the Decalogue.
Whilst your argument that resolving in favor OF
submitting the proposed amendments To- direct
vote OF the people is meaningless 10 the merits
of such propositions may be satisfactory 10 your
self and to those who are In favor of those pro-
posed amendments, you may rest assured that II
will not deceive such as are opposed 10 them. or
any of them. These opponents will not fail 70
Constitutional amendments at every sage. And
in this connection you should bear in mind that,
while there were petitions in favor OF some of the
proposed amendments. there are Others Tor the
passage Of which not "A sOul petitioned. They all
stand now on the same footing before the people
each having passed the first stage toward final
adoption. GEORGE III. CHAPMAN.