Evening star., 1920-01-09
CAN A RAT|FY|NG
STATE RECALL VOTE
Mr.. Busby Delves Into His
tory Regarding Constitu-
tionaI Amendments.
To the Editor of The Star:


In an editorial, "A Move to Recon-
sider,' last Saturday, The Star said:
1T has always been held as a funda-
mental principle in constitutional
amendment procedure that a state
that has once ratified cannot recon-
slider it's action, whereas state may
reconsider a rejection and substitute
an affirmation"
That statement appears more COM
prehensive than warranted by con-
stitutional history. 1t would be more
nearly correct without the word al
tence misleading. The Constitution
is 14O years old, but the precedent you
appear to have in mind is only little
over fifty years old-the ratification
of the fourteenth amendment. That
was in 1868. and New Jersey and Ohio
reconsidered their resolutions of rati-
fication and attempted to withdraw
assent to the amendment: but when
the Secretary of State reported the
resolutions of withdrawal to Congress
in July, 1853, Congress adopted con-
current resolution declaring that the
ratification of the amendment was
vital and sufficient.
That declaration of "a fundamental
principle" was by Congress and not
by the Supreme Court, and appears to
me hardly sufficient to fix such prin-
ciple for all time. 1t was. too, at a
time when Congress was so much de-
termned to amend the Constitution to
carry out the principle of the thir-
teenth amendment that 1t was charg-
ed with intense radicaliSm and "un-
constitutional methods" of changing
the Constitution.
Quotes Instances Of 1910.
But if that precedent has fixed this
fundamental principle" for always"
1t may lead to almost as much confu-
sion as the power to reconsider q rati-
fcation. For instance, in 1910 Con-
gress proposed an amendment declar.
ing that if any citizen of the United
states shall accept or receive or re-
tain or claim any title of nobility or
OF honor, or shall, without leave of
congress. accept any present, any
pension. any emolument Of any kind.
from emperor, king, prince or foreign
government. he shall cease to be q
citizen of the United States and be in
capable of holding any office.
Ihat amendment was ratified by the
iegisIatures of twelve states-Mary-
iand. Ohio. Kentucky, Delaware,
Tennessee. Georgia, North Carolina.
massachusetts, and New Hampshire
1t was also ratified by the Senate Of
South Carolina. but the House post
poned action on the resolution, and.
SO far as official history records, never
state. But under the impression that
South Carolina had ratified, making
thirteen states. this thirteenth amend
ment to the Constitution was printed
as part of the fundamental law and
remained in the official publication
through Madisons administration. A
resolution of inquiry by Congress de-
veloped the fact that South Carolina
had not ratified and that the amend
ment had failed to receive the ap-
proval of three fourths of the states
and 1t was dropped out of the official
publication of the Constitution.
May BE Still Pending.
If it is a fundamental principle"
that a state cannot reconsider a
resolution of ratification, this old
thirteenth amendment" submitted
and acted upon by twelve states 110
years ago. is still pending, and those
ratif1cation-not even New Jersey
President Wilson's own state. That
amendment requires ratification by
only twenty-four more states to make
1t a part of the Constitution.
There is another rather awkward
precedent. On March 2, 1851, Con-
gress proposed an amendment pro-
abolish or NEEDLE with slavery in the
states, and Ohio and Maryland ratified
the amendment. Is that amendment
still pending, Notwithstanding the
thirteenth amendment?
There is much curious history about
tinkering with the Constitution in the
past 140 years. and have never been
able to discover any fundamental
principle which can be said to have
always prevailed in adopting amend
ments
L. w BusBEY.