Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1883-04-23

determined questions involved, and tc
whose decisions the people yielded volun
tary obedience. That judicial decision
avoided the horrors of civil war. The DO.
Htlcal department of the government. to
which so much reference has been made in
this case, stood appalled, and impotent in
the face of great dangers, and yet we are
asked to abdicate our functions. to deny
our Jurisdiction, and to leave the question
OF an amendment to the constitution, un-
less voluntarily acquiesced in, to be
determined by a resort to arms. We
ought to ponder long before we
adopt a doctrine so fraught with
danger to republican institutions. All
the danger lies in the 1.-The of argument of
appellants attorney. Courts can never
overturn our institutions or subvert our
liberties. They command neither the
peace nor the sword of the state, but the
people which is educated to disrespect the
decision and disregard the adjudications
of the courts, is prepared for anarchy with
all its attendant evils and dreadful conse-
qUences.
We may perhaps be excused if in the in
terest of social order and public security
and permanency of republican institu-
tions, we enter a most earnest protest
against the heresie5 which have been ad-
vanced in this case.
The court then refers to cases cited by
the appellant - Peters Al; Blatchford,
II, -, Wallace GIG, and others, and points
out where they differ from the case at the
bar. The court quotes from IS Pennsyl-
vaEla stale, as applicable here: That
there are bat three known modes by which
the whole people Of the state can give
assent TO an alteration of an existing law
Jul form Of government. The first mode
is provided IN the existing constitution;
the second IN constitutional conventions;
the third a revolution of people VINO are
under an organized government. They
cannot change it unless in an authorized
manner.
No heresy has ever been taught IN this
country so fraught with evil as the doc
trine that the people have constitutional
right to disregard the constitution. Il
tends to revolution and anarchy. 1t is
incumbent upon all who influence and
mould public opinion to repudiate so dam
gerous doctrine, before it bears fruit de-
structive of republican institutions.
The court then says the authority without
conflict is that not only must eonstitu-
ton be amended in the manner prescribed
in the existing constitution, but it is COM
petent for the courts to inquire whether in
the adoption of the amendment the pro-
visions of the existing constitution have
been observed. The voice of the people
can only be of legal force when expressed
in the manner pointed out by themselves
in their constitution. Here the court cites
numerous authorities in support of this
doctrine.
The second question raised was that the
judgment of the nineteenth general as
sembly on the proceedings of the eight
zenith general assembly are conclusive and
cannot be renewed. On this point the
court discusses all the authorities cited by
the counsel, and says IN their opinion the
question involved in the case at the bar
does not fall within the principle laid down
by such authorities.
Having disposed of this question the
court shows wherein the provisions of the
constitution relating to it's amendment
were not complied with. 1t was claimed
in the Argument that certain papers
produced cured the defects shown by the
records of the Legislature. The records
are the ultimate and conclusive proof of
ILLO VI LilO 1CRlSldluISs IL
would be a startling doctrine indeed if it
should be held that the journals of the
general assembly could be c0ntradicted by
paper produced upon the street three
years after the action was had, by person
who will not permit his name to be dis
closed, and whom the court is not permit
ted to know. We might we'll tremble on
the permanency of our constitution
if such proceeding could be
sanctioned. 1t is matter
of the greatest regret that paper should
have been brought in this case so clearly
not entitled to legal consideration, and
which could have no other effect than to
further infame and excite an already sx-
cited and infamed public mind. If all the
obstacles in the way of sustaining the
amendment already considered could be
overcome, there are still others in the way
likely to be unanswerable.
In concluding the court says: Placing
the most liberal construction upon the
provision of the constitution, under the
consideration of which it is suscepti-
bic, we think it requires at least that en-
tries upon journals shall show the terms
of the amendment submitted. This is
not shown upon the journal either of the
senate or the house of the eighteenth
general assembly. We have approached
and discr ssed this grave question with full
appreciation of the esponsibiiity which il
invites, and we have given to its considera-
ton the earnest attention which
Its importance demands. We have
sought to maintain the supremacy oil
the constitution at whatever hazards. II
is for the protection of the minorities that
constitutions are framed. Sometimes con-
situations must be interposed for the pro
lection of majorities, even against them
selves. Constitutions are:adopted in times
of public repose, when sober reason holds
her citadel, and are designed for the loss Of
few years in nothing.
The constitution is the palladium of Re
publican freedom. The young men com
| ing forward upon the stage of political &C
ton must be educated to venerate it
Those already upon the stage must bt
taught to obey it. Whatever interests MAJ
be advanced or Fay suffer, whoever OF
whatever may be voted up or voted down
no sacrilegious hand must be laid upon tn,
constitution.
Abidingly and firmly convinced of the
correctness of our former conclusion
t,rn L L