The midland journal. (Rising Sun, Md.) 1885-1947, 1920-02-06
THE PROHIBITION AMENDMENT.
Ratification of Federal Amendment
BY A State Cannot Be With
drawn or Changed BY
Succeeding Legislature.


Succeeding Legislature.
The action of the Governors oil
New YORK and New Jersey asking
the Legislatures of these States to
repeal the resolutions adopted Ivy the
former legislatures to ratify the loth
amendment, raises the question oil
the legality of such action. Two
States in former years attempted to
defeat a constitutional amendment
by this same method and failed, be-
cause Congress and the courts con-
cluded when a State ratifies an
amendment it cannot recall its action
The wording of the national con-
stitution is peculiar in this respect.
1t states that whenever the legisla-
lures of three-fourths of the states,
or conventions ratify the amend
ment, such action shall be valid to
all intents and purposes, and such
amendment shall become part OF
the Constitution.
BY the wording of Article V OF the
Constitution it will be cited that
it does not say when One-fourth OF
the states reject the amendment
that it is lost, or whenever the state
once rejects the amendments that 1t
cannot thereafter ratify it. When
the legislatures of three-fourths OF
the states ratify the amendment, 1t
1..a.-..a eon I'll ;,fonfc oud n,rpOcQS
a part of the Constitution. This
wording of the Constitution throws
much light upon the procedure which
has been adopted by our courts in
constructing it. For instance the
legislatures of New Jersey and Ohio
ratified the 14th Amendment, and
subsequently passed a resolution
withdrawing such ratification. When
the ueqstion came up to be deter
mined whether the amendment has
been adopted by the requisite num-
Der of states, both New Jersey and
Ohio were counted as having ratified
the same, although abe ratification
had been previously withdrawn by
each of the States.
When Mr. Seward, Secretary OF
State, received these certificates say
ing the States had repealed ratiilca-
ton, he addressed communication
to Congress stating the facts, that II
these states were counted as ratify-
ing, the amendment was adopted.
Otherwise it was defeated. On the
following day Congress passed con-
current resolution that the Following
States including Ohio and New ter
sey had ratified the 14th Article OF
the amendment to the Constitution
Following this, Secretary Seward is
sued another proclamation ordering
the amendment to be published in
the newspapers in which he certified
that the said amendment has become
valid to all intents and purposes and
is part of the Constitution of the
United States.
The theory of Congress and oul
courts is that the Constitution re-
quires adoption IN TOTO and with
out condition. James Madison, Jr.
in reply to communication from
Alexander Hamilton said:
"An adoption for a limited time
would be as defective as an adoption
of the articles only. In short, any
condition whatever must vitiate the
ratification. What the new Congress,
by virtue of the power to admit new
states, may be able and disposed to
do in such case, l do not inquire, as
suppose that it not the material
point at present *** The idea
of reserving a right to withdraw was
started at Richmond and considered
as a conditional ratification which
was self-abandoned as worse than a
rejection"
This theory is further corroborated
by the holding of the courts that
when state has once rejected the
resolution passed by Congress or
ratification, it may afterwards ratify
the amendment. In the case of the
14th amendment the States of North
and South Carolina originally reject
ed the amendment and afterwards
voted in favor of the adoption of the
amendment in making up the re-
quisite number of votes to constitute
a ratification of the amendment.
The principle involved in the case
is similar to those cases where the
right to vote and authorize the issu-
ance Of bonds is served by state, and
where there is nothing in the act
limiting the number of times the
vote may be taken. In such case It
has been held that negative vote
does not prevent the submission OF
the question again. even though
several votes have been taken with a
negative result. See Society v. New
London, ~ Conn ia,