The Waterbury Democrat., 1933-02-09
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1888
A Contradiction

hga0 into me minutes or SOngIeSS Ie-
 gently was brief filed by A. Mitchell
 Palmer. U. S. Attorney General during the
 Wilson administration, dealing with the
 method of repeating the Eighteenth Amend
 ment It is pretty generally known that
 such repeal is more apt to be brought about
 not through state legislative action but by
 state conventions Keeping this in mind
 legislators seeking repeal of the liquor
 amendment are endeavoring to have the re-
 peal amendment state specifically that ratifi.
 cation shall be by state conventions. The
 9th Amendment. for example specifically
 said, This article shall be imperative un-
 less it shall have been ratified as an amend
 rnent to the Constitution by the Legislatures
 of the several States.
 The new lame-duck amendment also
 makes this provision, but they are the only
 two. However. all other amendments have
 been ratified in this fashion. Although the
 Constitution does say that ratification may
 be by the state convention method, we have
 never ventured to resort to it. This is due,
 of course. to the simple fact that the Con.
 sttution in offering an alternative in the method of ratifying did not describe the machinery by which these state conventions sshall be set up and delegates to them chosen.
 No state has as yet made any attempt to call
 state convention to approve or discard ]
 constitutional amendment.
 Now that there is likelihood of the 8th
 Amendment repeal being preached to the : several states the federal government is talk
 ing interest in the manner in which it will De done Mir Palmer holds that to the fed
 cral government alone belongs the right and ~-fhe power to say how. when. and where { these state conventions shall be constituted. ' He has the backing of such stalwarts as pr . Nicholas Murray Butler. Governor Albert C. z Ritehie, Francis P. Gatvin, Joseph Fl. M Choa:e. Jr Wayne Johnson. and others. z f3ut there is just as formidable an array = against this position. Foremost is Represen. z tative James M. Beck, an authority on con- ' stitutional law Senator Borah also noted z for his interpretation of constitutional law. . Senator Thomas Walsh Of Montana. and : Senator David l. Walsh of Massachusetts z We might quote Walsh of Massachusetts !. in this respect. He declared when intef- . viewed on the subject that T doubt very . much if Congres saetually has the power to S say how these conventions should be held' V and if it has. it ought not to have Here s we arc arguing for states rights in the mat . ter of controlling liquor traffic, and at the q same time some of the vets are arguing \ against states rights in the matter of ratlfl' V cation. 70 The senator seems to be cor . rect in implying contradictions We @ wonder how Governor Ritchie explains hIs S stand. He is believed to be the foremost V disciple of the theory of states rights in the . nation. Yet he would let the federal gov : crnment through Congress enter into the A states and set up state conventions to decide ' what the people of that state want to do . with regard to constitutional amendments ' Nobody questions the fact that the states z are being asked to vote on federal issue q Nor is there any dispute over the fact that e the Constitution says the several states shall . ratify in one of two ways. But when Mr q Palmer declares these Legislatures Of state ( conventions are exercising Federal function . rather than state function ..' we won !. der if he is correct If we arc to go no farther than the mere words of the fith z article of the Constitution, we cant see how !. Congress is offering to the states nothing . more nor less than choice between two 4 methods of ratfying amendments Beyond
 this the particular article does not go It seems {. logical to beve that to the state is entrusted . the power and right to decide just what it's state convention shall be.
 4