The Brattleboro daily reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1913-1955, 1920-08-04

method of amendment.
Let us resort to the great forensic eff
fort of Daniel Webster in his reply to
Senator Robert Y. Hayne in the United
States senate in 1929 The text of Mr..
Haynes argument is as follows:
Mr., Hayne here rose, and said, that
for the purpose of being clearly under
stood, he would state, that his proposition
was in the words of the Virginia resolu-
ton, as follows:''
That this assembly doth explicitly and
pefemptorily declare, that it views the
powers of the federal government, as re
sultlng from the compact, to which the
states are parties, as limited by the
plain sense and intention of the instru-
ment constituting that compact, as no
farther valid than they are authorized
by the grants enumerated in that com
| pact; and that, in case of deliberate
palpable and dangerous exercise of other
powers, not granted by the said compact,
the states who are parties thereto, have
| the right, and are in duty bound to in
terpose, for arresting the progress of the
evil, and for maintaining within their re-
/, spective limits, the authorities, rights
and liberties appertaining to them
| The reply of Mr. Webster is the most
effective that could be made to the legal
argument of Governor Clement.
This leads us to inquire into the
origin of this government, and the source
of its power Whose agent is it? Is it
the creature of the state legislatures, or
the creature of the people? IL the gov
eminent of the United States be the
agent of the state governments, then
| they may control it, provided they can
/ Al - IL. ~.
| it be the agent of the people, then the
| people alone can control it, restrain it,
modify, or reform it. 1t is observable
enough, that the doctrine for which the
| honorable gentleman contends, leads him
10 the necessity of maintaining, not only
/ that this general government is the crca-
| tnre of the states. but that it is the crea-
IRE of each of the states seyerally; so
| that each may assert the power, for it
| self, of determining whether it acts with
| in the limits of its authority 1t is the
servant of four and twenty masters, Of
| different wills and different purposes, and
| vet bound to obey all. This absurdity
| flor it seems no less) arises from a mis-
| conception as to the origin of this gov
eminent and its true character 1t is,
/ sir, the peoples constitution, the peoples
government; made for the people: made
! by the people; and answerable to the peo-
| Pile The people of the United States
| have declared that this constitution shall
/ be the supreme law
The opinion of His Excellency on the
supremacy of the United States constitu-
ton is expressed in the following lang
| uage:-
THE constitution of Vermont has had
| the sanction of use and approval for
more than 40 years. Careful provision is
made in that constitution to inssre ex-
| tended consideration and deliheration In
Ilmaking changes affecting it's provisions
and for direct submission to the freemen
of the state. The legislature may propose
| changes, but Section of Chapter III of
/ the constitution, providing the powers of
the legislature, says: "Ihey shall have
no power to add to, alter, abolish, or in
| fringe any part of this constitution"
! Section 81 Of the same chapter declares
that, this constitution Ought not to be
violated on any pretense whatsoever. =
| The proposed nineteenth amendment to
/ the federal constitution would in fact,
| if adopted, make 4adical changes in the
| constitution Of Vermont and in our form
| of government.
''The provisions for change in the fed
eral constitution, to which we Vermont
ers are loyal subscribers, are in conflict
with those laid down in the constitution
If Vermont The federal constitution
| provides that PROPOSALS for change there
IN shall, if favorable action is taken
| thereon by the congress- be submitted to
the legislatures of the several states for
their action, and the supreme court of
/ The United States has in recent de-
cison. Hawke Y. Smith, June /, 1920, de
clared:
The referendum provisions of state
1 constitution and statutes cannot be APP
| Piled consistently with the constitution
| Of the United States. in the ratification
| or rejection of amendments to it
! This decision leaves the people at the
mercy of any group of men who may
lobby proposal for change to the federal
constitution through congress and then
4 through the legislatures of the states.
| In the face of this situation. / am
asked to call the legislature of Vermont
into extraordinary session, not for the
purpose Of debating, considering, deliber-
ating ON the question at issue, but with a
majority of its members pledged before
hand and in private, as / understand it,
to ratify the proposed amendment.
IF the people of Vermont in accepting
/ a place in the union of states, inadver-
tently lost in whole or in part the right
i Of self-government and conferred it upon
the legislature, there is all the more rea-
son why the legislature should not pass
npon question which has arisen since
their election and upon which their con-
stituents have had no opportunity to ex-
i press themselves.
''The people are the supreme governing
power of the state, and the legislators,
under our constitution. are their repre-
sentatives and responsible to the people;
yet, it is now proposed that their legis-
lature take action without the sanction
of the people and in direct invasion of
i their rights
This opinion indicates plainly that the
i governor is in favor of a strict construc-
! ton of the United States constitution
and that, notwithstanding a settlement