Milford chronicle., 1920-06-04


amendments to the Federal Con-
stitutiOn after the State Legisla-
ture has ratified Is regarded rs a
great boon fer suffrage.
Had the decision been reversed,
reierendums would have been
held in approximately dozen
States, thus prOlOnging the fight
and making il certain that ratiti-
cation could not be affected to
make ii effective for the NOVem-
ber elections.
As it is, the Ohio ratification
is definite and conclusive, and
only one State more Is needed.
The Supreme Court held on Tuesday
that federal constitutional amend
ments cannot be submitted for ratih-
cation to a referendum vote in States
having referendum provisions in their
constitutions. The court declared
imperative the Ohio State Constitu-
tional Referendum Amendment inso-
far as it affects ratification of federal
amendments.
Ohio Supreme Courts DEGREES dis
missing injunction proceedings
brought by George 5. Hawke, Of Gin
cinnati, to prevent submission Of the
prohibition and woman suffrage
amendments to the voters were set
aside by the court.
Justice Day in rendering the courts
opinion which was unanimous, said in
part:
"The Constitution of the United
States was ordered by the people, and,
when duly ratified, it became the Con-
stitutiOn of the people of the United
States. The States surrendered to
the general government the powers
specifically conferred upon the ma
ton, and the Constitution and the laws
of the United States are the supreme
laws OF the land.
THE trainers of the Constitution
realized that it might in the progress
of time and the development Of new
condition require changes, and they
intended to provide an orderly man
ner in which these could be accom-
plished; TO that end they added the
Fifth Article This article makes
provision for the proposal OF amend
ments either by tWo-thirds OF both
houses of Congress or on application
of Legislatures of two-thirds Of the
States. The proposed change can only
become effective by the ratification Of
the Legislatures of three-fourths OF
the States, or by conventions in like
number OF States The method OF rat
ifcation is left to the choice Of Con-
gress. Both methods of ratification by
Legislatures or conventions call Tor
action by deliberate assemblages rep
resentatiyes of the people which 1t
was assumed would voice the will Of
the people. Ratification might have
been left to a vote OF the people, or
to some authority Of government other
than that selected. The language OF
the article is plain, and admits Of no
doubt in it's Interpretation.
THE only question for determine
tion.is:
aWhat did the trainers Of the Con-
stitution mean in requiring ratihca-
ton by Legislatures That was not
a term of uncertain meaning when
Incorporated into the Constitution.
What it meant when adopted it still
means for the purpose OF interpreta-
ton. A Legislature was then the rep
resentative body which made the laws
of the people. The term is often used
in the Constitution with this evident
meaning.
There can be no question that the
trainers of the Constitution clearly
understood and carefully used the
terms in which that instrument re-
ferred to the action OF the Leglsla-
lures of the States. When they in
tended that direct action by the peo-
nile should be had they were no less
accurate in the use of apt phraseology
to carry out such purpose.
1.-THE argument to support the pow
er of the State to require the approval
of the people of the State OF the rati-
fcation Of amendments to the Federal
Constitution through the medium Of
a referendum rests upon the PROPOSE
tion that tie Federal Constitution re-
1nires ratification by the legislative
action of the States through the
medium provided at the time Of the
nroposed approval of an amendment
This argument is fallacious in bhls-
ratiacation by a State Of a consti-
tutional amendment is not an act oi
Hesitation within the proper sense
of the word. It is but the expression
of the assent Of the State to pro-
posed amendment.
"It is true that the power to legis-
iate in the enact - e....tt CO sas "a el
State is derived from the people OF
the State. But the power to ratity a
proposed amendment TO the federal
Constitution has its source in the
Federal Constitution. The act Of rat
ifcation by the States derives its au-
thority from the Federal Constitution
TO which the States and people have
alike assented. Any other view might
lead to endless confusion in the man
ner of ratification Of Federal amend
ments. The choice of means of ratifi-
cation was wisely withheld from con-
ficting acts in the several States"
In attacking the referendum amend
ment Mr.. Hawke alleged il was the
intent of the trainers OF the Federal
Constitution in prescribing ratification
to be by the legislatures" to mean
the general assemblies Of the States
and not directly by the voters. He
also contended that the power Of rati-
fication was derived from Federal and
not State authority.
The Ohio Supreme Court reversed
the contentious. 1t held, further, that
the amending OF the Constitution is
a legislative function, and in the ex-
ercises of this function it was con-
templated that all agencies provided
By the State for legislation should be
empowered to act
Seven other proceedings have been
brought to prevent submission OF the
prohibition amendment to a referen-
dun. The Washington Supreme Court
too virtually the same view Of the
question as did the Ohio court, while
the courts ia Oregon, Maine. Colora-
do. Arkansas, California and Michi-
gan held that federal constitutional