Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1902-11-22
TELEPHONES,
xsTuRpAY. :. NOVEMBER %, 1902.
c.sr AGAINST CONSTITUTION.

Tho proceedings which have been lnstl-
,rtaa in a Federal court to nullify the new
organic law Of Virginia. are naturally at
,racting good deal of attention ana eA
citing good deal Of interest OUTSIDE as
well as inside the State. The Baltimore
sun discusses the case at some iehs'h'
and we are led to infer from ITS arl'cio
that it considers that pretty much 'ile
whole issue turns upon the question 10
.ha4 extent if any, a constitutional con"
vention is subject to legislative authority.
Our contemporary cites the TACT 'fla' 'iiiS
,uestion was ably argued in the virginia
convention, which came to the conclusion
that the body represented the sovereignty
of the people and could not be pouno by
legislative action. Then, in commenting
on commandments contention that the Con-
rtitution is null and void, because it was
NOT submitted to the people. as proVloeo
in the legislative act, which the coh'en-
tion ignored, the Sun says that If the court
takes this view of the case and SO oe-
cides il will be unnecessary to consider
any other point.
Internationally so it would appear. But
decisions Numerically opposed to Mr..
wise's contention have been rendered ny
,,e highest State courts, and these decl-
sions have so far stood The henluchs
case especially covers the point in the
complainants' bill directly under conslo-
Grafton After the Constitution had been
adopted by the people, the convention
elected to draft it made several changes
in il and promulgated it as whole. Inc
validity of this proceeding was contested;
the case was carried to the Supreme Coure
of the State and that tribunal refused 10
interfere The commentary in American
Law Reports" on the courts position, ls
as follows: This puts it practically in
the power of the convention. With the
mere acquiescence of the Governor and
the Legislature to force upon the people
any constitution which the convention
chooses to adopt, and leave the courts
nowerless to interfere" Whether the Leg
islature has a right to bind Inc Virginia
convention or not according to the de-
cision Of the Kentucky Court, that issue
is eliminated from the present case. The
Governor of Virginia and her General
Assembly have acqulesced in and accepted
the new organic law. Through their Leg
is!ature the people Aave accepted and en-
dorsed the action of the convention IN
promulgating 1t. The instrument is an &C
complished fact.
A similar decision to that in the Ken
lucky case was also rendered in a question
bearing on the Pennsylvania Constitution.
and in both these decisions the spirit of
the doctrine enunciated by the United
States Supreme Court, wherever it has
touched on the principles involved in such
cases was followed.
It is true that neither Of these cases
was carried to the United States Supreme
Court, but the fact that both rested where
they We're left by the State courts
that they were not appealed-makes
strongly against the chances of a Federal
decision In Mr.. Wise's favor, even if it
should be determined that the Federal
courts have jurisdiction. But in any event
4 is interesting to recall the Kentucky
and Pennsylvania cases in this connec-
lon