Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1911-09-14

proposals to every tenth session, POPULAR,
known as the time lock. Its brief state
mcnt of reasons for this most needed
change might be the subject Of an inter
esting discussion. but our present pur.
pose is to consider a different question
namely; have We a time lock? Is ths
method prescribed in Article y Of the
amendments exclusive? Is there no other
orderly and legitimate way to change the
fundamental law? Would every other
way be revolutionary rather than amend
atory?
Those who r:aintain that tho method
now prescribed IS the only way In which
the constitution can be amended woulu
have a very serious proposition to es-
tablish. If the freemen of the State in
ls,0 the date OF the adoption Of Article
% Of the amendments, could irrevocably
fix upon every tenth year for amend
ments. why could they not have fixed
upon every seventeen year. every seven
hundredth year. or every seven thous-
andth year? II you once concede they
had power 10 limit any amendments To
any specific period, you would Conceda
70 them the power 10 make our constitu-
ton Interchangeable forever. No change
other than by the prescribed method
would then he possible except a. revolutions
airy one Before accepting such a result,
before believing that any one generation
can. in the vigorous phrase of another.
construct "a coffin in which the futura
centuries Of the state should he con-
fined, distorted and paralyzed." the prop
ositlon is worthy OF a moments exam
nation. Every people, so far as we ara
aware have regarded its laws, however
fundamental, subject to change
Dynasties and class have at times in
culcated the doctrine of the Divine right
TO govern and It's transmission They
have founded this doctrine upon a sup
posed selection by some divinity OF certain
persons and their descendants to he rll-
ers Of nation; hut when we trace back
and discover the origin Of their preten-
sions we come face TO face with A deed.
sometimes questionable, but always hui
man.
Caesar went to Gaul as a Roman pro-
CONSUL His conquest was due To his lc-
gions and not to Divine nterposit!on.
Not until his death was mis- divinity born.
| The place of its birth was not a manEor
over which the very stars kept watch.
hut his pyre ont OF whose ashes hit
divinity rose, fabulous as the phoenix.
The bed of justice from which Louis
XIV proclaimed his divinity was, at
most, an elegant article II French car
pentry. The divinity Of the Russian car
is a man-made lkon. We pity the CHM
| csc for their dragon worship, but the
/ political gods before which our race has
| sometimes bowed, although not taking tha
| form of any particular monster, have
| possessed no more divinity than drag
| on.
Is there any more foundation for tho
claim of periodic unchangeablity of y
! constitution than for that of divinity in
| a king? How can one generation bind its
| successors? II cannot rest upon our idea
| Of a contract, for contract pre-supposes
| the existence of parties whose minds
! meet upon a given proposition. The
! minds of an unborn generation cannot
meet the minds Of the living. Tho alb
! surdity of a contract Is readily apparent.
! But it is suggested that a people may
enter into an obligation that resembles u
! contract, as in the case Of our state and
/ federal governments. If there was any
thing to this suggestion the answer Is
| that there are in this case two SOW
! eregnues, two parties to the contract,
| but It has been long settled that no con-
| ract, in the ordinary sense, exists be-
tween the State and federal governments.
! The constitution of the United States
| was adopted by the people thereof an |
| not by their local governments or tha
| LEGISLATURE Of the States. Not the states
as local entities, but the people Of tho
United States were recognized as tho
/ party to ratify the federal constitution.
No state government or LEGISLATURE raj
flied IT,, As matter of convenience tina
Inhabitants OF the existing political diN-
sions called colonies or states, were al
lowed through conventions, to ratIfy or
reject it.
The States of Vermont and Texas arc
the only two States to Nhich the suEges-
ton OF a contract or treaty may apply
with greatest force, Both or them eN-
listed as independent sorereisntles before
their admission to the Union. Their adj
mission resembled an act Of annexation
with the consent Of the annexed; hut their
annexation or admission, as the case may
be. was not an act of their Legislatures.
but an act of the people of the state act
| ing through conventions created for that
, express purpose.
Neither was the annexation in accord
snce with any provision of the State con-
stitution. our constitution In force in
q 1891 did not provide that Vermont could
al N6-~~&isA,ea en '>-cS@ 81