The Brattleboro daily reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1913-1955, 1920-07-12
NO SPECIAL SESSION.
Continued from Page ID

olution of the congress OF the Onlteo
States of America, entitled JOINT Reso-
luton Proposing an Amendment TO the
Constitution, Extending the Right OF
Suffrage to Women with a request that
It be submitted to the legislature of Yer
mont for such action as may be had.
II have received requests and petitions
from individuals, residing both withinI
and without the state, asking me to call
a special session of the legislature OF
Vermont to ratify this resolutions; and
| from others not to call a session Tor that |
purpose. Numerous political and other |
/ organizations have made similar requests.
IThe Importance of this matter demands
a full presentation of the facts TO the
voters of the state and statement OF
my conclusions.
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 insure ex-
TENDED consideration and deliberatlon III
making changes affecting its provisions
land for direct submission to the freemen
lof the state. The legislature may pro-
Ipose changes, but section of chapter
lof the constitution, providing the powers
of the legislature, says: They shall have
lno power to add to, alter, abolish or in
fringe any part of this constitution.
Section 81 of the same chapter de-
clares that this constitution ought not to
be violated on any pretence whatsoever.
The proposed 10Th amendment to the fed.
/. eral constitution would in fact, II
: adopted, make radical changes IN the
! constitution of Vermont and i'll our form
5 of government.
! THE provisions for changes IN the
. federal constitution, to which we YER
t monters are loyal subscribers, are IN con-
e fiict with those laid down in the constr
/, tuition of Vermont The federal constl-
tuition provides that proposals for change
O THEREIN 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 a recent decision,
Hawks vs.. Smith, June lst, 1920, de-
c declared
THE referendum provisions OF state
constitutions and statutes cannot be APP
iplicd, consistently, with the constitu-
n ton of the United States, in the ratifica :
u ton or rejection of amendments to it.
Is This decision leaves the people at the
mercy of any group of men, who may
I lobby a proposal for change to the federal
= constitution through congress and then
: through the legislatures of the states.
u I'm the face of this situation, | am
asked to call the legislature of Vermont
into extraordinary session, not Tor the
- purpose of debating, considering, deliber-
Eating on the question at issue. but with
a majority of its members pledged be-
: for hand and in private, as | understand
! it, to ratify the proposed amendment.
6 If the people of Vermont, in accept
- ing a place ON the union of states, mad
= vertently lost in whole or in part the
: right of self government and conferred
it on legislature, there is all the more
= lrea on why a legislature should not pass
1t Iupon a question which has arisen since
Ts1tfeir election and upon which their con.
I'd stituents have had no opportunity to ex.
II pre-, s 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
vet it Is now proposed that their legisla
turc take action without the sanction o
q the people and in direct invasion of then
= rights.
For this reason, / am calling to thu
attention of the voters of Vermont TIN
ct all-.mportant proposed change in our con
Ia stitution. 1t may be forced upon us by
- the action of other states: nevertheless
W it is our duty to know what the attitude
st of our senator's and representatives il
er upoa this subject and to elect men wis
IL represent our wishes.
nm candidates for the legislature of 1872
!, should be required to declare their posi-
= ton on the subject without delay.
Is 1T is evident from the reading of thu
ell constitution of Vermont that when Tn,
= n
the union of states they had no idea thai
they were signing away liberties which
had been boldly proclaimed and zealousl,
guarded up to that time.
I'VE must now either remodel our owl
constitution to conform with the man
date of the supreme court of the United
States, or the constitution of the United
O. States must be amended to provide fo
a referendum to the free men of the sew
. eral states before amendments to that
constitution become effective. As il
stands and is interpreted by the suprem,
= court today, the federal constitution
! threatens the foundation of free popular
J government.
: "The 18th amendment, providing for q
7 federal income tax, was lobbied through
} congress and the state legislatures by
federal agents. The 18th amendment fol-
: federal prohibition was forced through
: congress and the state legislatures by a
= powerful and irresponsible organization
= operating through paid agents with un-
I limited funds. 1t is now proposed to
force through the 10Th amendment fol
woman suffrage in the same manner and
also without the sanction of the free
men.
Il have been asked to overlook these
considerations as a matter of party ex
pediency, but this is a matter of prin
tciple, not expediency, and the party that
invades well-established principle OF
popular government will suffer IN th'
end.
"Ou, constitution was framed teinsurt
N orr liberties not To nroscribe them. il