The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1890-10-29
Constitutional Amendments.


Already two important constitutional
amendments have been submitted to
the senate. That body has delicate
duty to perform in taking action in
reference to amendments. A two
thirds vote is necessary to send an
amendment to the house, and, if one
does not meet the approval of both
branches this year, il will sleep for ten
years, if it does not die in the mean
time. Changes in the constitution
should come only as conditions change,
and such changes should come only
after ample discussion.
AT first radical proposition, such as
the reorganization of the judicial sys-
TEN, is met with fiat opposition by the
conservative element. 1t is natural
and well that it is SO. This conserva.
tism is the bulwark of order and sta
bility. But suppose an amendment is
intrinsically good. Even then its pro-
moters must din it into the ears of the
Legislators and voters until its merits
are too plain to be ignored. This is
t9e Experience that every amendment
must have. La the light of this II coz
niz fact, how absurd is the pro-
vision Of the Vermont cons,iu ion
which allows amendments to be pro-
posed but once in ten years! l. t us
suppose there is strong seuti ueut in
both houses in favor of the amendment
which changes the time of The election
to November. 1t may not be quite
strong enough TO get the necessary two
thirds vote in the senate or receive the
sanction of the house. AT once it be-
comes dead issue. For ten years
there will be little said about it, for peo-
pie are not likely to talk on subject
on which they cannot act for many
years, and when an amendment is pro-
posed for the second time, the seeds
sown in the earlier discussion will have
little fruit to show This is the prac-
teal effect of the law. 1t makes the
process OF amending extremely slow;
and it endangers careful consideration,
because many amendments are likely
to be proposed in the decennial years,
to the advantage of the undesirable
ones as much as to the detriment of the
good. There were twenty six amend
ments proposed in 1880, and of these
but siX-all of comparative uuimpOr-
tance-passed the house. Ii the twenty
six had been presented at different SEES
sions, careful and due consideration
could have been given them all. As it
was, in the closing days of the session
many of them were totally neglected.
Whether they were good or bad was
never asked.
We are aware that this restrictive
provision of the constitution has some
defenders, but such a policy is not
democratic. If the people can be
trusted to make constitution, they can
be trusted to amend it whenever they
think it should be amended.
We do not wish to be understood as
favoring continual tinkering of the or
ganc law. The experience of the ma
ton and of other states, in the major
ity of which amendments can be pro-
posed at any regular session of the
legislative body, is ample proof that
free opportunity for amendment does
not imply continual tinkering. The
vote of two successive legislatures and
final ratification by the people is a
sufficient check against hasty action.
The constitution is not perfect, and it
never will be perfect. The interests of
good government demand some changes.
The people should now take in their
hands the power to propose changes at
any regular session of the legislature,
and so keep them before the public
for discussion, just as temperance, taxa
ton, the schools, etc, are subjects of
popular debate. So will more rapid
progress in good government be made,