St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1891-03-23
DEAN AND DONNELLY.

That was an interesting scene in the
senate. the other day, when Mr.. Don
NELLY snapped his fingers and said
that he did not give tinker hurrah for
the Magma Charta or the constitution.
and Mr.. DEAN wcpt great, hot tears of
modification and sorrow, and said: "Oh,
the shame of it"'
Yet, if the GLOBE understands the
controversy. Mr.. DONNELLY was right
and Mr.. DEAN in error. There is nOCh-
ing sacred about the Magma Charta, is
there. MI DEAN? The GLOBE has
looked carefully through the WeStmin-
lister CatecbiSm, aud it cannot find that
it is blaSphemy to take the name Of the
Magma Charta in vain. Have you not
got this document confused with some
thug else, Mr.. DEAN? The average
student of history conceives the Magma
Charta to have been sort of contract
which some medieval robbers made
with the Chief robber Of their time,
whose name was JOHN and who seems
to have been a thoroughly disreputable
character. Before this contract was
signed this man JOHN enjoyed monop-
oily in the business of plundering the
poor and the helpless, but By the pro-
visions of the Magma Charta he was
compelled to agree to sort of trust IN
the enterprise, and consent to division
of the Doodle with his fellow country
men VINO were in the same trade.
To be sure, they hullabaioo good
deal about this thing in England. But
that does not prove that it amounts to
much. They get enthusiastic on slight
provocation over there, because they
have so little to be enthusiastic about.
The sun shines only about once a year
in England; and when it does, all the
poets laureate on the island rush into
print about it. When the news spreads
that lark has been seen in an English
meadow a host of SHELLEYS and
WoRDsWORTHs flap their wings and
begin to sing for very joy. In America
1t is somewhat different. The mere fact
that the beefeaters think we'll of the
the Magma Charta does not give it any
peculiar sanctity. Mr.. DONNELLY is
quite right in refusing to grow pale i'll
its presence.
There IS nothing sacred about the
constitution either, for that matter.
Mr.. DoNNELLY has right to say what
he pleases about it and still move in re-
spectacle society. In its original form
it was nothing but patchwork of COM
promises "wrung from the grinding ne
cessities of a reluctant people," There
were lots of bad features to it. For
one thing. it tolerated human Slav-
cry. 1t even went further than
that. 1t permitted the importation of
human souls for this dreadful purpose.
if people had felt about it the way Mr..
DEAN seems to, it would have been as
impossible to improve it as it is to re-
form our system of English spelling.
But fortunately, this has not been the
prevailing view. The constitution is
quite respectable document now, but
that is because it has been tinkered so
much. The supreme court of the
United States, and congress, and the
people at large have all taken clip at
it. The amendments thus made have
helped it good deal, but it is not per-
feet yet, Mr.. DEAN. 1t is worthy of
our respect because of its history and
its character. But it will need several
generations of reforms at least TO get it
into final satisfactory shape.
Its peaceful amendment from time to
time is a very desirable thing Mr..
DoNNELLY is quite right in refusing to
take part in fetish worship.