The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-12-30
WHO CHANGED
THECOAST|TUT|ON?
r"sRls&s$ ----------s W.
Amendments of 1919 Have
n
Been lnterchanged.
MATTER OF $50, OOOAYEAR
In the Constitution Published in 1889
Appears Amendment Of '68.
No ACTION SINCE 1879 is RECALLED
The Words INDECENT Insane" Were Inserted in
10 in Place of All the Insane" as the
Provision Of '68 Read. The Re-
version is Unauthorized.

version is Unauthorized.
To the Editor: In your issue OF De-
comber 10th you published an interview
in regard tC the States Insane, disclosing
q condition of affairs which is a great
surprise to me, as it must be to many
others, lawyers as we'll as the public
generally. So great was my surprise that
l have investigated the subject some
what, and strange as it may seem, find
it true that the published constitution of
the State relative to tie care for the
deaf mutes, the blind and the insane, has
been changed apparently without any au-
thority or warrant of law.
| find the facts tc be substantially
these Article II, Section TO- of the
Constitution of 1868, reads as follows:
The General Assembly shall provide that
all the deaf mutes, the blind and the in
sane of the State, shall be cared for at
the charge CT the State Such was the
law and so it appeared in the biennial
publication of the Constitution from 1868
TO and including 1879
But for some reason this provision
seems to have become unpopular, for the
General Assembly of 1870 passed an
amendment to the Constitution and sub
mitted the same to a vote of the peo-
pie for ratification, which made Article
XI, Section 10, read as follows: THE
General Assembly may provide that the
INDECENT deaf mute. blind and insane of
the State shall be cared for at the charge
Of the State"
This amendment YES voted on by the
people in November, 1880, and duly rati-
fed and adopted by q majority OF 16,704,
the vote being canvassed by Chief Justice
Smith and Governor Jarvis, with w. II.
Bagley acting as secretary, as was pub
lished in the News and Observer under
date of December 9Th and December 10th,
1880. And on December 18th, 1880, Gov
ernor Thomas J. Jarvis issued his procla
nation setting forth the ofcial count
and declaring this amendment to / he Con-
stitution duly adopted and rat fed accord
ing to law.
The Constitution published in 1881 drop
ped the provision Of 1858 and Inserted the
amendment of 1879. And ag lin in 1888
a copy of the Constitution wa5 prepared
by the Code Commissioners, ,proved by
the General Assembly of thar year and
published in the Code, with thu provision
OF 1853 omitted and the aIns 1dment of
1879 inserted and as authori y for the
change reference is made to tne Acts of
1879, chapter GA. So too the biennial
publication of the Constitution from 1881
to 1887 inclusive contained the amendment
of 1879 in place of the provision of 1868.
In 1889 the biennial publication of the
Constitution omitted the amendment of
1879 and inserted in its stead the pro-
vision of 1868. Why this was done and by
what authority have as yet been unable
to learn. / find no allusion to the subject
in the Acts Of 1887 or 1889; the Secretary
Of State cannot account for IL, and public
as far back as 1879, cannot explain it.,
but are perfectly certain that there has
been no change of the Cons tuition in this
regard authorized since 1879.
1t is well nigh inconceivable that any
one for purpose should have falsifed or
caused to be falsifed so sacred a thing
as the Constitution of the State; and
there must have been some authority for
the change, or else it was a most un-
rrecedented blunder. 1t is certainly most
remarkable that the amendment of 1879.
which had been published five different
times within ten years, should have been
entirely overlooked, and the provision Of
1Se8. which had been replaced and had
not been published for ten years, inserted
verbatim in its stead.
il | have overlooked anything in con-
nection with the matter, trust some one
better acquainted with the facts and the
history of the times will make it plain
Some explanation of so remarkable an oc-
currence should lie had
1t IS likewise matter of practical i'm
portance. The difference between caring
for ''all the insane" and the INDECENT
insane" only at the charge Of the State
probably means $4,000 or $40. 900 a year
TO the taxpayers, which with the public
treasury in its present condition, is an
item worthy of serious consideration.
With the institutions for the insane ask
ing for increased appropriations it might
be wise fer the General Assembly to as
certain if the will of the people as ex-
pressed in the Constitution and the petit
tioas Of the institutions for more money
may not be complied without additional
burden to the public treasury and the
taxpayers of the State.
This must not be construed as an at
tack uron these noble institutions. which
are blessing TO humanity and an honor
10 our State. Never since the touching
appeal of that angel of mercy, Dorothea
DIX, has the State turned deaf ear to
these unfortunates, whom God has made
public charge; still from the reading
or the Constitution it seems that the
people do not intend to assume as an
additional burden those who, though be-
reft OF reason, are blessed with worldly
goods and therefore able to pay for their
own care and treatment.
ALEX. J. FIELD.
Raleigh, n c.. Dec. %.