Democratic Sentinel, Volume 6, Number 20, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 16 June 1882 — AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION. [ARTICLE]

AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION.

The Hon. George H, Chapman, a Republican Senator from Marion county, has written the following lets ter to the Indianapolis Journal on the subject of amending the Constitution of the State, It is sound law and good common sense: Editor Journal:—With no desire to trespass on your columns, or uooti the patience of your readers, I assume that the importance of the question whether the Republican party should commit itself to , the support of the four proposed amendments to the Constitution now pending before the people which has at least th a merit of originality, so far as I am advised. You say in efiect you “apprehend the people understand the Constitutional provisions perfectly,”? and ‘-‘under ordinary circumstances will permit their representative in the General Assembly to do their legislative workaccording io those provisions, but, “in cases of extraordinary importance or exceptional circumstances” wiil exercise their “inherent sovereignty.”— This seems a little misty, for the term “inherent sovereignty” is very vague and you have failed to disclose definitely what you mean by it. I infer, however, that the idea you wo’d convey is that when the pruvisfons of the Constitution hinder or impede what those people, who understand Constk tutional provisions as perfectly, wish to accomplish, then those people propose to set such provisions at defiance. This, if successfully accomplished, is revolution. If backed by a small force it is mobocracy; if by a large force it is rebellion. I must be permitted to doubt whether any considerable number of “the people” propose to invoke this “inherent sove. reignty” just now.

You wish to know “tffrat member of the Legislature is clothed with the Divine right of Kings” as to refuse to Obey an instruction from his constiU Heucy “toagree to the amendments so that the people in their primary capacity may consider them.” Passing over the fustian about “Kings,” I an< swer that every member is entitled to exercise the Divine attribute of conscience, and has a right, and it is his duty, not to follow any instruction from his canstituency which, in his judgment, requires him to disregard the Constitution. There is nothing in the sixteenth article requiring the General Assembly to “agree to” a proposed amend men! “so that it may be submitted.” On the contrary, the clear, imperative requirement is that that the General Assembly shall consider the merits of the proposition and agree to it, or not, according as their judgment shall approve or condemn it, and that Constitutional provision binds the people as well as the Individual legislators. I pointed out in my former coni’munication that by the letter of the Constitution the General Assembly had nothing whatever to do with the question of submission, or no submission, for if two consecutive Genera 1 Assemblies “agree to” a proposed amendment, the,Constitution; makes an duty to submit.— There can be no submission without previous legislative adoption. I de-

g re to rail attention to another feature of the sixteenth article, which further fortifies this position, it that b? possible. What dues the Constitution say a propt sed Amendment shall be sutm g $d to electors for? To “ratify. To ratify what? Certainly not the act o' submitting it to them, though you say that is all the legislature has io do, and by consequence all there co’d be to ratify. That would be child’s p av. What then? Why. t > “ratify” o leiusa-to “ratify” tho action of the pr< posed amendment. In other words, if the two General Assemblies do a ree to a proposed the people have reserved to the electors a veto power tnrough a direct vote. — The Sixteenth Amendment is something of a thorn in your flesh. I don’t wonder you have seized bold of a section of the bill of rights as a banner for your “inherent sovereign t/” doctrine.and when that flag go< * down, I expect to see you come up smiling With the Declaration of Independence or the Decalogue. Whilst your argument that resolving in favor of submitting the proposed amendments to a direct vote of the people is meaningless as to the merits of such propositions may be satisfactory to yourself and to those who are in favor of those nroposed amendments, you may rest assured that it’ ' ill not deceive such as are' opposed to them, oi any of them.— These opponents will not fall to ap predate the} importance of fighting proposed Constitutional amendments at every stage. And in this connec tion you should bear in mind that, while there were petitions in favor of some of the proposed amendments, there are others for the passage of v. hichnot a soul petitioned. They all stand on the same footing before the people, each having passed the first stage toward final adoption.

GEORGE H. CHAPMAN.