Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1919-01-23
GOVERNOR OPPOSES
DRY" AMENDMENT


tho committee as a private citizen andi
ono Interested in whatever affects the
welfare of the State lie defined the
Issue as IL relates to the Sheppard
amendment as follows;
First. Shall the State of Vermont
continue to exercise It's sovereign right
as n State to regulate It's internal af-
fairs according to its own Judgment,
or shall 1t voluntarily relinquish rights
which have hitherto been considered
Inherent and exclusive to the State and
submit to having It's internal affairs
regulated from outside the State?
Second. II Vermont is to relinquisf
such rights, shall 1t be done by the
method proposed, the result OF which.
should 1t not prove satisfactory, could
not BIO altered?
Third. Shall the Legislature of YER
mont relinquish the rights of the PEG
pie without their consent or approval?
He asserted that the proposed amend
mem. invades the rights of Vermont
people as provided in the State con-
stitution.
| Article 5 of the Declaration of Rights
of the Inhabitants OF the State of YER
mont provides that the people of this
State by their legal representa- ives,
| right Of governing and regulating tho
internal police of the same" The SER
tence, by their legal representatives
| was not included in the original con (
| stitution of 1777 but was incorporat ed !
| later.
II Chapter second of the constitution /
| comprises a delegation and dis,ribu- |
ton of the powers Of government. Sec I
i ton of that chapter designated what
| ha NJ no 81
Representatives should be, and the last
i paragraph Of that section says But
II they shall have no power to add to,
alter. abolish, or infringe any>part of
II this constitution"
II Mr.. Clement pointed out that the pro-
| hibitory law of 1857. the local option law
II of 1902 and the Perry act of 1915 were all
Il submitted to the people of the State for
II approval. He said the proposed amend
II ment to the federal constitution. whilo
II not directly addressed to an amendment
II of the Vermont constitution in effect
II accomplishcs an amendment to the StateA
II constitution in that it takes from thei
II State the right to regulate it's itnernal
II police.
II 1T may be argued said GOVERNOR
II Clement, that the federal constitution
II makes provision that the Legislature Of
Il the State shall pass upon this question.
II should pass upon the question but only In
II conformity with the mandate of the con-
Il stitution itself. Even though the fed
II eral constitution might be held to take
II precedence In the matter OF an amend
II ment, it is clear that the people OF YER
II mont intended that no amendment tor
II their constitution should be made with
II out their positive approval This evil
II dent intent the part of the people can
IL n. s.r-x =
II without relinquishing in any degree it's
n right to ratify the pending amendment OF
III the federal constitution. House bill No.
III % provides for a referendum vote at tho
III March meetings After that vote had
III been taken there should be question
II about the will of the people in regard to
II this important matter. This Legislatures
II would be in possession of the peoples
II mandate and could act accordingly
II 81 contend, Mr.. Chairman said Gov
II ernor Clement that the members OF
ii this Legislature. having taken an oath
II that they will not do or consent to
II any act whatever that shall have A.
ii tendency to lessen or abridge their
II right-that is. the rights and privi-
II leges of the people as declared by the
II constitution of this State, have no right
| therefore to ratify this amendment
i without first having presented it in.
|
III this State
II when Vermont became one sf the
II United States of America. she became
| part subject to the constitution of tho
III United States, and that constitution
III reads The Congress, whenever two
II thirds of both houses shall deem IL
ii necessary. shall propose amendments
III to this constitution which shall be-
come effective when the Legislatures
III of three-fourths of the States shall
II have ratified the proposed amends
III ments.
II ut is conceded that two-thirds Of
II both houses did not vote on this ques-
ii ton. That and several other question >
II which challenge the Legality of this
II document will undoubtedly be present =
III ed to the courts for adjudication.
II am informed that litigation is expect =
III ed in % of the States whose legislatures
IL have ratified the amendment
III THE Bar associations of the State of
III New York and of the city Of New York
III and OF the state of Massachusetts have
ri taken UP this matter and have asked the
III Legislatures not to pass this proposed
III amendment on account of the way in
III which is was proposed. the fact that con-
III current power to enforce the same shalt
II be given to Congress and the Legisla =
H lures of the various states, and because
III tne SeNen-year lrnItatlOn Is not PROVIDED
i for in the federal constitution. These
ii questions viii have 10 he determined by
II the courts and will ho matter of end
II less litigation and strife"
II Governor Clement pointed out tina {
| after II years of local option, the people
II of Vermont by a majority of more than
II 1900 vote down the Perry act designed
H to repeal the local option law. Hs
/ showed that only nine towns in the State
III are now wet" whereas under prohibi-
II ton the prohibitory law never prohib-
II tied. He said the cause of temperance
H has gained tremendously in the last .
II years. chiefly, he thought. owing to tho
II education of the masses against the sin
II Of intemperance. He declared he did not
!, object to prohibition, provided a majority
Z of the people of the State express their
desire for such law.
But" said the governor, Ell this
es constitutional amendment should pas :
or the courts and become law of tho