The Ocala banner. (Ocala, Marion County, Fla.) 1883-194?, 1920-05-21
THE MIAMI HERALD AND The
EIGHTEENTH AMENDMENT

SIEtuESU d D34l OIL FtgNLS WHICH tEc
/ convention omitted, but which the
! several states (meaning all OF theml
declared must be included as CT me
original instrument or they would
never ratify the constitution.
The convention had adjourned sine
die. 50 TO wn0m did these several
states make this condition pre-
/ cedent 10 their ratiGcatic
Upon this subject Messrs Garner
and Lodge, in their v0luminous His
Tory OF the United States, have the
following 10 say.
MANY objections were raised
against the constitution in the state
| conventions. but hardly any OF them
have proved as serious as predicted.
one OF the most general OF these
was the lack Of & bill OF rights So
curing to the individual a sphere III
liberty which the national govern
ment should be forbidden 10 en-
Croach.
Accordingly several Of the states
mot all OF them accomplished their
ratification by proposed amendment
embodying d number OF important
prohibitions upon the power Of con
gress as a means OF safeguarding
civil liberty"
Before the proposals had reached
the congress the ratification had tax
en- place, and the legislatures had adj
journed, so they could not have said
that unless these additions were made
as a part Of the original instrument
they would never ratify it.
These additional articles, twelve Of
them in number, were submitted N
the manner as pointed out in article
FIVE, and ten of them were ratified by
the requisite number of state legis-
latures.
They were not made state issues
and discussed before the voters in
primaries or general elections.
They were simply proposed to fhf
several legislatures and adopted pre-
cisely in the same manner as article
eighteen.
The matters contained in these sew
eraI additions or amendments were
regarded as of little consequence by
the trainers of the constitution COM
pared with other graver ones. ana
during the long summer months that
they srere III session they were not
ACO1bCh at dA1- VI Ii LuUg LIS
tOr;ans, like Senator Henry Cabot
Lodge, at whose feet the Herald
draws a good deal of it's inspiration
do not mention it in his History of
the United States. but he devotes
whole pages to other matters thai
were discussed very profoundly and
with more or less heat and ardor,
which at times came nearly to the
point of breaking up the convention
and producing an entire change in
our form Of government.
There were as many objections 10
it in its several stages OF develop
ment as there are now to the peace
treaty.
Notwithstanding the fifth article OF
the constitution defining how amend
ments are to be made to it, the Her
aid holds that even if that article IS
followed in it's entirety that two
thirds of the states have no right TO
force upon the one-third a law that is
repugnant to majority of it's citi-
Zens.
We quote from the Herald:
Is it possible asks the Banner
for a state. when a great majority Of
its people desire it, to part with az
of its rights That is a fair spnci-
men Of the Banners methods OF ar
gument and plainly indicates its
leaning toward subterfuge in stating
a case. The question is not whether
state, if it wants to do so. can sur
lrender its reserved rights The real
question is, can state, honestly.
fairly and morally. be compelled bv
other states 10 surrender its reserved
rights without its CONSENT"
Carried to its logical conclusion.
where does such an argument end?
II may be asked il tvJ-thirds ot
the counties of a state may honestly
fairly and morally force npnn the one
| third law that a majority OF ite peo-
pie regard as onerous, repugnant and
obnoxious?
Still it may again be asked if two
'birds of the wards of a city may
estly. fairly and morally force
he remaining one-thrd a law
Ry consider onerous. repug-
obnoxious?
ats logical conclusion
of any number force
Rrd u law that they
Rg with their per
attention Of the
Aleoty 10 end2
bn convention
month the nj
Rnit to the die
nc convention
the one-third
the action OF