Smyrna times., 1897-02-24

passed by the final vose OF 70
to 5.
The Convention for drafting a
new Constitution, which is suf-
fering from the taint of illegal
ity, is nevertheless attracting
more attention than the Legisla-
ture, which is loaded down with
a greater taint The question
that confrouts the honorable
body is, that after they have
weighed the various matters for
our organic law with delibera-
tion and ability (and no one
doubts the capacity or ability of
the members to frame a proper
constitution), will the months of
time thus devoted to this pur-
pose and money spent, avail
anything? The real question is,
will any constitution that the
convention may frame and be
submitted to a vote of the peO
pie be ratified? Will the desire
for it on its me tits overcome the
objection from those who want
no change on the one hand and
those who reject its want of le-
gality on the other! The word
RATIFICATION is the one word
that stands in the way of secur-
ing a new constitution.
The last issue of the hder has
an editorial over a column in
length that is credited to the pen
of James L. WOlcott, Esq,
which argues that the COnstitu-
ton after being framed by the
members of the convention,
must be ratified by vote of the
people. Before entering on the
argument he says of promul-
eating the result:
Much has been said both for
and against the advisability of
such a course. but, so far as we
are aware, nothing whatever has
been said as to the illegality of
such a step. The constitution
makers themselves, and the pub
lie generally, seem to assume
that such a power is inherent in
that body.
We would advise them to care
fully examine the grounds of
such an assumption. In fact, it
is far from clear that any such
power does exist at all.
After noting the expressions
of Jameson and Judge Cooley
on Constitutional Limitation
"they must submit the result OF
their deliberations to the people
he says:
Section s of the Act under
which this convention is now
assembled explains the peril
nancy of the last quotation. Il
is as follows:
"That in the opinion of this
Legislature" (the General Assem-
bly, of 1880 'the constitution
framed by the convention here
inbefore provided for, should be
submitted for the approval ot
the legal voters of this State"
There is absolutely no Ian
guage anywhere in the Act re-
ferred to which can be construed
into a special delegation OF
power to promulgate a constitu
ton without submission to the
people. On - e0ntrary, the
language uocu IA section 3 shows
a manifest desire in the Legis
lature of 1895 that the work o.
the present convention should bt
submitted to the legal voters o.
the State; and this section, il
the absence of express power 0.
PRONUNCIATION, must certainly b'
admitted to be direct negatiOT
of any such right.
The editorial in question thel
goes on to argue that not to sub
NIT the constitution to the peo
pie for ratification would be no
only bad faith, but arbitrary, an,
a distrust of the people whom
they represent.
There is a belief stronger thai
an inference that the great dc
sire for having the documen
Submitted to the people" is t
kill it. They want no chang
from the political methods of tn
past. Other States may NOV
on in the procession of advance
ment. but Delaware can tax
care of itself.
Another class see the const
tuition makers from an opposit
view. Said one of them in T,
ferring to their deliberation
though they may frame a COZ
Stif71fi0n never so oood and