Year: 1878

nsnt. It proposes TO engTaIt upon our con-
stitntion number OF novel and extraordinary
Limitations upon the Legislative power. The
restrictions placed upon one Of the co-equal
estates of government by this amendment are |
too comprehensive and Of too vital nature
to be adopted without grave consider
alton and discussion OF the hands Of learned |
and thoughtful men.
The necessity OF increasing tho constitu- |
tional limitations ON the Legislative power.
especially In all matters relating TO ths
raising and dispensing OF revenue, and
the creation OF debts, Is Of very mod
ern birth, having been suggested by the
rapaclty and peculation the Republican
party introduced into the administration
Of public affairs. How far the principle can
be extended without destroying tho efficiency
of the Legislature, Is d question OF the utmost
inheritance and Of the most difficult
nature besides Tho extent to which
1t Is carried In this amendment has
never been attempted elsewhere,
and IT would certainly be- extremely hazard
Gus for us to lead off IN an innovation Of such
vast consequences without putting before the
people every possible argument pro and con
upon each separate proposition, that the peo-
pie may be enabled to vote intelligently upon
it. Tho wisdom Of limiting the Legislative
power, especially In respect to the imposition
and collection Of taxes, OF erecting vast State
debts and creating vested and contract rights
against the State, no ono recognizes more
fully than we. For this very reason
we insist that these wise and necessary
precautions shall be well digested in order
that they may be thoroughly efficient. We
have already stated that the idea of increasing
these constitutional restrictions is OF modern
date. Indeed. 1t Is yet scarcely more than an
experiment, in which Pennsylvania recently
| led off In her new constitution. Exactly how
far the principle con be safely carried Is 81
| most delicate md complicated question. 1T
| should be discussed by q convention OF our
ablest and most enlightened citizens. 1t Is
certainly inadvlsable to go headlong into
such an extreme as Is proposed In this
amendment in the manner proposed. There
was, we venture to say, not an hours discus
sion Of this amendment in the Legislature at
the time of It's passage by that body.


There are many objections to the amend
ment as 1t now stands and its faults are both
of omission and commission. TO begin with,
1t perpetuntes all existing monopoles, and
by forbidding the creation of others, leaves
these without rivalry or danger OF rivalry
There are q great many persons In this State
eminently qualified toe have q sound and
Intelligent opinion on the question who
believe that the monopolies now in
existence can not be destroyed except
by an exercise OF the original
and Inherent power Of the people. They hold
That there are no constitutional processes
provided by which these body lice may be
killed., either by tegii5tiative Judicial E&et +
DDS. Society must be reorganized dc nopt
in order to loosen their hold. They are the
proper and appropriate parasites Of the body
polite as 1t is now organized, and the whole
theory and principle Of the organism must bF
altered to get rid Of them. The genus ant
aperies must undergo % thorough alteration
it must pass through q process Of evolution
out Of which it shall come II new thing upol
which such vermn cannot live This chang
can take place in but one way and that Is il
O. constitutional convention.


Outside Of the clause forbidding the crea
tion of rnonopolies, we, really, do not see muc
tn commend in this amendment. Practically
IT. but makes o part OF our constitution


preat deal of statutory law, thus petrifylng il
MS It were. and preventing such changes an
improvements as time and altered cirCum
stances might render advisable and usefu
For example, we see nothing specially com
mendabIe In the present legal process {
legitmating children as established In thl
State and We see no good reason for maxim
the law on tho subject q part Of the Stat
constitution The law on this subject is bu
part of our law of succession, which ever
lawyer In the State recognizes as the mos
cumbersome, intricate and unsntisfactor
part of our peculiar and otherwise admirab
system of law, and q division Of it whic
greatly needs alteration.


Again. we do not see why q destination


q road or street should be made perpetu


when it has become useless and anoth'
would prove necessary, or why the contr
over this question should be removed fro
tho Legislature any more than it Is alread
by existing constitutional provisions.


We do not SEQ why our laws, and they al
far from admirable, in regard to the estat'
of minors should be perpetuated in their In
perfections.


|
forbidding the Legislature to legalize 'u


authorized or invalid acts of any officer


agent of the State, or Of any parish or mur


cpality" Had there been such q proviso


the constitution of the United States, the r


tions issued to our suffering poor by the W
Department could never have been given


them. Under the failure Of the army al


navy appropriation for last year, tho


branches of the public service wou


have beon disbanded Of necessity.


every government there arc continually G


curing cxigences requiring immediate q


tion, the disbursement of moneys otherwi


appropriated, the doing OF things not authc


ized, but which are Of vital importance, al


1t would be wrong and dangerous in t


extreme for the power of approving the wi


and viglant acts Of an official, taken at gre


personal risk and responsibility, to be tax


from the Legislature.


The last clause of the amendment, whi