The Lakeland evening telegram. (Lakeland, Fla.) 1911-1922, 1913-01-25
WE STILL INSIST.

WE STILL INSIST.
1t may seem absurd 10 rie ira Md
legal mind ., throd.tor 81 t.c lanpA
Times iuat SO Should still insis Oh
Cur contention that i is le-4lly per-
r,issii e to create lhe state OF Wes,
FioriJa after his .cr> able and clah-
oratc ar2ument TO prove the con-
trary. Oar view If He case rcs.s on
slcn broad grounds If sovereignty
IL Tie people to 60 as they please
with their own that it is amcnahle
to no technical restraints aud yields
OILY to the superior authority o.
the federal constitution TAat con
Stitution does not forbid the or cation
OF a new state from part Of IN old
one. but. ON the contrary, permits
ii b. irresistible Implication. rpquir-
ing only legislative and coneression-
al consent as conditions precedent.
Tha, being true, the matter rests
with the people OF Florida; they arc
sovereign within their own orders
and rs the expression of their SOW
ere,qu will al the polls they can
create The new State in its inchoate
stage in it relation 70 the federal
union, define its boundaries, adopt
= rou Stitution, %eI The ncycssar,
legislative consent and take hat
inehnate stat" to ConGress and ask
il to ratify the action OF the people
OF Florida Further steps 10 BE- tax
eli would be only those necessary in
the ease OF territory seeking add
mission rs State Tie Times viii!
dor htlcss pronounce this program
nonscnsc aud from its point of view
il certainly is. But We must still
insist that We have a clear case
The very fact that the federal
constitution contains the section
which provides that no new State
shall be formed or erected within
the jurisdiction Of another State,
nor any State be formed by the june
ton Of two or more States or parts
OF States without the consent of the
l., gislatures Of the States concerned
as well as of Congress" shows clearly
enough that the trainers Of The con
stitution had in contemplation the
time when the division Of some ons
or more of the States might he ad
visahlc and fully recognizing it.
practicahility. required only tha
legislative and congressional con
sent should he had as a condition
precedent Il di,! not prescribe tn,
method by which such new sat
should ba formed b. auSc it reroc
nized the riaht o. he people them
selves to determine hat matter.
The Times says that "ft is Idle +,
say that the people ht'o riea' t
rise above the constitution sud d
whichever thrH 'flca@e W. Ia,
not said thcl coHld. hut U.s. ILL., r.
stitutica is ittlf The crcatnfc Of II
people the tan adopt any a:acn
ment TO il thny please, even
amendment providing for vote mn
the question o. state division a,
the actual creation Of the new Sta
itself so far rs "ay be without 20
gressional co'tarr.n.c.
The Times frahr says: "On
those governmrnJal act that are
conformity with tho provisions
the constitution are authorized by i
those either expressly forbidden
upon which the constitution j. sill
are Unauthorized by it aud nuco
stitutional." How about the remoy
OF a State canital by popular vol.
The constitution is silent .rn fla
subject Would such removal q. a
constitutional Certainly moi. lii
wise the constitution is silent -.s
State division. and. rs We sec il.
people are competent to vote M.
H.
Bit if tho Times says no heca,i
there is no constitutional provisi
for such vote. then does il also ne
atite the proposition that the Lee
lature could submit to popular va
constitutional amendment provi
ing in detail for the division of 4
State, defining the boundaries Of 4
new State. the location of its go
ital and furnishing it with all 4
necessary skeleton equipment tn
NAV be put into IN amendnenf
Would the adoption Of such &
amendment be any violation # I,
constitution or any appeal 10 Il
higher law? Would il not be in Q,
tire conformity with the mctho