The daily banner. (Cambridge, Md.) 1897-2008, 1920-03-11
AMENDMENT STANDS
Ratification OF A Federal Amend
ment By A State Cannot Be With
drawn Or Changed BY A Sue
ceeding Legislature.


the Legislatures of these States to
repeal the resolutions adopted by the
former legislatures to ratify the 18th
amendment, raises the question of
the legality of such action. Two
States in former years attempted to
defeat constitutional amendment
by this same method and failed, be-
cause Congress and the courts con-
! cluded when State ratifies an
| amendment it cannot recall its ac-
| amendment it cannot recall its
| action.
| The wording of the national Con-
| stitution is pc uliar in this respect.
] 1t states that whenever the legis-
| latures 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 a 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 amendment that it can
not thereafter ratify it. When the
legislatures of Ihree-fourths of the
states ratify the amendment. it be-
| comes for all interests and purposes
a part of the Constitution. Thu
| wording of the Constitution throws
| much light upon the procedure
which has been adopted by our court
| in constructing it. For instance the
legislatures of New Jersey and Ohio
| ratified the 14rh amendment, and
subsequently passed a resolution
| without such ratification. When the
question came up to be determined
whether the amendment has been
adopted by the requisite number of
states, both New Jersey and Ohio
were counted as having ratified the
same, although the rati, cation had
been previously Withdrawn by each
of the states.
When Mr.. Seward, Secretary of
State, received these certificates say
ing the States had repealed ratifi-
cation, he addressed a communication
to Congress stating the facts, that
| if these states were counted as
ratifying, the amendment was adopt
ed Otherwise it was defeated. On
| the following day Congress passed a
| concurrent resolution that the fol-
lowing States including Ohio and
| New Jersey ratified the 14th Article
| OF the amendment to the Constitu-
| ton. Following this, Secretary Sc
| ward issued another proclamation
| ordering the amendment to be pub
| lished in the newspapers in which
| he certified that the said amendment
! has become valid to- all intents and
| purposes and is a part OF the Con-
| stitution of the United States.
The theory of Congress and our
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 yitate the
| ratification. What the new Con-
gress. by virtue of the power to ad-
| nit new states, may be able and dis
| posed to do in such case, | do not
inquire, as 1 suppose that is not the
material point at present. The idea
| of reserving right to withdraw was
| started at Richmond and considered
as a conditional ratification which
was self-abandored- as worse than
| rejection"
This theory is further corroborat-
ed by the holding of the courts that
when a state has once rejected the
resolution passed by Congress or rat
if1cation, it may afterwards ratify
the amendment. In the case of the
14th amendment the States of North
and South Carolina originally re-
jected the amendment and after
wards voted in favor of the adoption
of the amendment in making up the
requisite number of votes to consti-
tute a ratification of the amend
ment.
The principles involved in the case
is similar to those cases where the
right to vote and authorize the is
suance 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 a 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, 29 Conn. ia.
In the United States district court
it was held; zone election does not
exhaust the power, unless the results
is in favor of affirmative action"
Chief Justice Marshall said
THE principle is asserted. that
one legislature is competent to re-
peal an act which a former legisla-
ture was competent to pass; and that
one legislature cannot abridge the
power of a succeeding legislature.
The correctness of this principle, so
far as respects general legislation,
can never be controverted.< But if
an act be done under law, q sue
ceeding legislature cannot undo it.
The past cannot be recalled by the
most absolute power"
In the case of the amendment
first mentioned. the affirmative
action was taken in each instance,
and therefore the power to vote on
the amendment was exhausted, and
subsequently legislatures had no
power to rescind the former acts.
If this were not the law, an inter-
minable conflict would arise every
time an amendment is proposed.
Those opposed to an amendment
could unite their opposition and get
control of legislatures, and recind
enough notifications to prevent three
fourth of the states from ever act
ing favorably upon an amendment
by a given time. The trainers of
the Constitution acted more wisely
than they knew in drafting Article
v, so that the ratification was final
final.
w. B. WHEELER,
Attorney and General Counsel of the