The Manchester journal. [volume] (Manchester, Vt.) 1861-current, 1914-06-11
TnE CONSTITUTION
who Jurflcd The constitution s''--
burlington Clipper.

burlington Clipper
I Let's 10 SLOW on this. Kind nrirhbor.
Tor 1t Is a serious matter and nothing
is TO be gained by "a jump into the
dark let it frs, he determined that
the constitution has been juTKled
before We begin 20 ask who did ii
4 In the frsi place the members of
the supreme court wrrr authorized TO
rewrite chapter two Of the constitu
tion Why was this done : Tho
question can b. answered In no better
words than those used BY the com
mission appointed ia propose amend
ments TO our organic law. which rc
port, by the way, is signed by the
present governor, along with the 9th
er members Of the commission. Among
other things the report says:
'rhe existing constitution Of Yer
mont was established July ., 1898. Ii
has been amended five different times
lin 1898, 1896, 1850, 1870, and 1883
These amendments cover twenty
eight articles, some Of them contain
ing more than enc section.
Article Is OF the amendments pro.
vides that such parts and provisions !
only Of the constitution as are altered
or superseded by any of the first
twelve articles Of amendment or are
repugnant thereto shall thereafter +
cease to have effect Although un-
expressed, such is also the effect Of
all later amendments The amend
ment affecting the selection of judges
of the supreme court in number 26. | /
The amendments have never been /
written into the constitution; but the
constitution entire and the amend Il
ments entire are printed together and
what has been altered or superseded Il
by any of the amendments or is re-
pugnant thereto remains entirely
matter Of Interpretation, except the
43rd section specifically abrogated by
amendment article 25, section 4.
"Of the forty-three sections OF chap
ter 2, fourteen have been amended
one or more times, and Of the twenty
eight articles of amendment six also
have been amended There are
twenty sections or articles, there
fore, which no longer stand as they
read.
Section 8 is an extreme example of
the extent TO which these changes
in the text itself, have
gone. This section relates to the
powers of the house Of representatives
and is still printed IN the constitution
as originally adopted. '''
"1he result is that if one turns 10 {
section 8 to see what the powers Of
the house of representatives are he
will find that it states them incor-
reetly in at least eleven particulars; 1
nor can he ascertain what the true :
sense of section at present is until !
he has carefully studied the same in
with ten different amend
ments The courts and the bar can of
course determine what the constitu- |
tional provision on a given point may !
be, although some provisions by this 6
system of amendments have been left i
obscure; bat to the average layman s
chapter 2 Of the constitution and its a
abound in inconsisten- 8
ries, and in parts are uninteligiblo p
to those who are not trained in de- S
whether one provision tech "
nically supersedes another or is re- c
pugnant thereto h
"rhe fundamental law Of the state, Z
which ought to be the simplest and
most easily understood Of all, has by Is
,he process of years become the most !
I. : " 4
Let it be noticed that it is said in
he report that the constitution as !
t read then was confusing and practi- Il
ally of no use to the layman, that y
I abounded with inconsistencies, and y
n parts was "unintellibible to those n
Who are not trained in determining p
whether one provision technically SUI i
,ersedes another or is repugnant ie
hereto; that "the courts and bar can =
# course determine what the consti-
utional provision on given point IL
nay be although some provisions by u
his system of amendments have been
eft obscure"
What more natural, then, that the
upreme court was appealed to to ie
ewrite the chapter in such a way -
hat its true intent should be preserv
d while at the same time il would be
Ineligible to all Surely the su- g
RENE court can handle matters of in "
better than any other
'ody Is itstrangc that the result
nay be different than some laymcn tv
xpected? If the constitution were in 81
uch a condition as the commission in
tated it was, how is a layman able
o say now that il has or has not been
uggled with? N
II is mighty serious matter for RI
nyone TO say that the justices of the IA
upreme court have juggIed with the ii
rganic law Of the state. II they have
one this, they have reached down and
yrenched al our very foundations, for ar
t our highest court cannot be trusted nj
0 preserve our constitution, who In AZ
name can be? But there is ia
o precedent on which 10 base such a "
istrust. The Vermont bench has been
onorable and above reproach. II is
ardly fair TO place the justices under n
il Is manifesty unjust TO ht
ay that they have juggled with the 70
onstitution, without more proof and II
igher authority than has been fo
against them up to the pres N
Mt time. The burden Of proof Is on Sc