THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS.
Mr. HEFFREN moved that the House resolve itself in to a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Commonwealth, for the further consideration of the status of the proposed Constitutional amendments, acted upon by the last General Assembly.
The motion was agreed to, and accordingly the House resolved itself into a Committee (Mr. Jewett in the Chair), the question being on concurrence in the Patten and Jewett minority report from the Judiciary Committee. [See pp. 79, 108, 113,116,118 of the Brevier report ]
Mr. BEST thought that in the further discussion of the question before the Committee, it would be almost impossible for any member to offer anything new. The ground had been fully covered. He entered into a lengthy argument citing page: 138[View Page 138] authorities and precedents to show that all the changes and amendments to our National and State Constitution have been declared unconstitutional by great Constitutional lawyers, but in the end they have had to confess that they were in the wrong, and were compelled to acquiesce in the voice of The people. Mr. Best cited as example the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth amendments to the National Constitution were held to be unconstitutional by many great men and a great party, until notified by the people, and since that time they have been a part of the Constitution, and no one has questioned the fact The people have demanded that these amendments shall be submitted to them, and the Republican party has always been willing to allow the people to speak their voice on this question. No gentleman on this floor should allow his Judgment to be biased by any decision of the Supreme Court. The framers of the Constitution knew the meaning of the word "enter," and did not use it when they meant "spread at large."
Mr. HANSON thought that in the discussion of he question much time had been unnecessarily consumed in a vain effort to envelop the real issue before the House in a tissue of misleading statements calculated to draw the attention from the main question. This is not the first time in our brief history when a great party has attempted to stifle the voice of the people and prevent their will from crystallising into the organic law by the 'stop thief" cry of violating the Constitution. Has any one attempted to have any amendment inserted in the Constitution without the concurrence of the people at a popular election? I regard the provision that the amendments with the yeas and nays shall b^ entered on the Journals as mandatory. It means what it says. And I only insist that gentlemen on the opposite side who have insisted so strenuously upon a literal construction of the Constitution, shall he compelled to swallow the same medicine they hive prescribed for us. Believing, as I do, that both the letter and spirit of the Constitution have been complied with, and that these amendments are now properly before the General Assembly to be acted on as the Constitution requires, I deem it my highest duty as well as pleasure to cast my vote in such manner as to carry from these hails to the people, in whose voice and will reside the ultimate and exclusive right to create or change the fundamental law of our State, the amendment proposed by our last General Assembly to be finally passed upon by a popular vote.
On motion, the Committee arose and reported progress, and asked to sit again: at 2 o'clock. The report was concurred in by the House.
Then came a recess until 2 o'clock.
