sent of the Senate, to make treaties provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur."

This discriminating language gives confirmation to the construction of Article V that two-thirds of both houses means twothirds of the full membership, rather than two-thirds of the members present.

The Constitution was framed by men of the highest ability and character with an experience and surroundings such as could hardly again be expected. They had lived as colonists of Great Britain, were familiar with the principles underlying that great system for the protection of civil rights and liberties known as the common law, had gone through the eight years of the Revolution, had seen and known the actual workings of the Articles of Confederation, which had been agreed upon during the Revolutionary War. They had realized that new States would come into the Union. The Northwestern Territory was the main, if not the only thing which kept the Union from falling to pieces in 1786. This had been conquered by George Rogers Clark, in 1779, and which the careful and judicious part taken by our commissioners at the time of the treaty in 1782, had enabled us to hold. Virginia had apparent possession of it, but claims were also made by New York, Massachusetts and Connecticut. Maryland demanded that this immense territory ought not to be added to any one State or divided among two or three States, but that it should be the common property of the Union. She refused to ratify the Articles of Confederation until the four States named should relinquish their claims to the Northwestern Territory, which was done between 1780 and 1786. This action of Maryland was for many reasons a great contribution to the ultimate security and growth of the Union. Congress spent much time in providing for the organization of this territory culminating in the Ordinance of 1787, which was the beginnings of the great States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin. Many disrupting forces were at work to destroy the Union of the States but the problems arising in reference to the new territory tended to hold the Union together. The construction of the Chesapeake and Ohio and the Erie Canals was the result of deliberations had in those early days. for means of communication between the original thirteen States and

this new territory. Commercial policies were discussed and a general convention of the States to decide upon a uniform system of regulations for commerce was called and held at Annapolis in September, 1786. Only eleven States sent representatives and the convention adjourned without transacting any other business than calling another convention to meet at Philadelphia on the second Monday of May, 1787, "to devise such further provisions as shall appear necessary to render the Constitution of the Federal Government adequate to the exigencies of the Union."

The Connecticut delegates to that convention were Oliver Ellsworth, Roger Sherman and William Samuel Johnson. They ranked well with the delegates from other States, such as Alexander Hamilton from New York, Robert Morris from Pennsylvania, George Washington and James Madison of Virginia, the Pinckneys from South Carolina and Elbridge Gerry and Rufus King, of Massachusetts. It has been stated by many eminent authorities that never again would it be possible to get together men of such intelligence, experience, training and sincerity, in such an atmosphere as pervaded the deliberations of that convention. They had a clear vision of many new States. They knew the pitfalls in regard to the fundamentals of a Republican form of government and the fact that the document, which they produced, has with slight changes stood the test for all these decades and now is regarded as a model for the world generally, is evidence of their great insight and wisdom.

After the instrument had been agreed upon, it was referred to a committee on style and it was written in the best and clearest of English. It is inconceivable that when it said "two-thirds of both houses," one-third only was intended; for 144, two-thirds of a majority, or a quorum, is only one-third of 432, the total membership of the present National House of Representatives, and 34, twothirds of a quorum of the Senate, is substantially one-third of 96, the present membership of that body.

The atmosphere in which the Constitution was prepared should not be overlooked nor should it be forgotten that every article is founded on the presumption of a clashing of interests between the larger and the smaller States.

Notwithstanding any precedent which has been made in the House and Senate which allows so small a number of each house to be considered as two-thirds, the State of Connecticut has never decided that such a construction of the Constitution was the proper one. There are many other states which have not made such a decision, although they have ratified amendments submitted by less than two-thirds of both houses, about which there has been no disagreement and where the point was not raised before them. Failure to raise the question concerning an amendment in favor of which there was practically unanimity of opinion cannot be held a waiver of the right to raise the objection nor an acquiescence in the precedent claimed to have been established. We believe that no State, deliberately and with its eyes open, would desire to put itself upon record as in favor of this method of changing the Constitution. If Connecticut and a sufficient number of other States do ratify such a method of amendment the results are fraught with grave consequences. This is only the entering wedge.

The language of Mr. Justice Davis, in ex parte Milligan, 4 Wallace, 125, is apropos:

"This nation, as experience has proved, cannot always remain at peace, and has no right to expect that it will always have wise. and humane rulers, sincerely attached to the principles of the Constitution. Wicked men, ambitious of power, with hatred of liberty and contempt of law, may fill the place once occupied by Washington and Lincoln; and if this right is conceded, and the calamities of war again befall us, the dangers to human liberty are frightful to contemplate. If our fathers had failed to provide for just such a contingency, they would have been false to the trust reposed in them. They knew-the history of the world told them—the nation they were founding, be its existence short or long, would be involved in war; how often or how long continued, human foresight could not tell; and that unlimited power, wherever lodged at such a time, was especially hazardous to freemen. For this, and other equally weighty reasons, they secured the inheritance they had fought to maintain, by incorporating in a written Constitution the safeguards which time had proved were essential to its preservation. Not one of these safeguards can the President, or Congress, or the

Judiciary disturb, except the one concerning the writ of habeas corpus."

Article V of the Constitution also requires that three-fourths of the States shall ratify any proposed amendment. It does not say three-fourths of those that vote, but three-fourths of the States. A State may refuse to vote upon the subject and if one State can refuse to vote, then 23 of them may so refuse, and three-fourths of the other 25 may ratify the so-called action of Congress; thus 25 being a majority or quorum of the 48, the proposed amendment would be a part of the Constitution by the ratification of only 19 States, if this method of amendment should prevail.

Those in favor of standing by the so-called precedents made by the speakers of the National House of Representatives and by the presidents of the Senate hold that the word "houses" means a session of the houses, capable of doing ordinary business; that is, a majority or a quorum present in each house. But this matter of amendments to the Constitution is not the ordinary business of the legislative branch of the government. In the case of Hollingsworth vs. Virginia, 3 Dallas 378, the United States Supreme Court held that the President's signature to a resolution proposing amendment to the Constitution was not required. Attorney General Lee, in his address to the Court, said that "the case of amendments is evidently a substantiative act unconnected with the ordinary business of legislation and not within the policy or terms of investing the president with a qualified negative on the acts and resolutions of Congress." He was about to continue further in his answer to the argument of counsel on the other side when he was interrupted by Mr. Justice Chase, who said, "There can surely be no necessity to answer that argument. The negative of the president applies only to the ordinary case of legislation; he has nothing to do with the proposition or adoption of amendments to the Constitution."

It is, therefore, evident that the framers of the Constitution considered the proposing of amendments an extraordinary power outside of the ordinary business of Congress. Any precedents made by the House and Senate in reference to overruling a veto of the President, where two-thirds vote is required, are, we believe, not

binding upon this State in its view with reference to this extraordinary exercise of constitutional power by Congress.

But this question, while partly legal and one which the courts can determine, has also a broader range and is one which in the immediate future is coming before our General Assembly for action. It has a political aspect, using that adjective in its best sense, and the responsibility should not be shirked by the Legislative Department nor cast wholly upon the Judicial Department for decision. The State Senators and Representatives are sworn to support the Constitution of the United States, as well as that of their own State, and their sworn duty requires a rejection of any amendment which has not been submitted in accordance with that Constitution.

To show the lengths to which the speakers of the House have gone in defiance of the Constitution it might be stated that in February, 1902, the House was considering the joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution in regard to the election of Senators. Mr. Corliss, of Michigan, asked whether a roll call was necessary or would it be sufficient if, in the judgment of the speaker, a two-thirds vote was cast. The speaker answered that the presumption being that a quorum was present and the chair deciding that in his opinion there was a two-thirds vote in favor of the measure, it was within the power of the House to test the vote, but it was not necessary.

Thus if only 10 members of either house are present and no want of a quorum is suggested, two-thirds of the 10 could pass a resolution submitting a constitutional amendment. Even when there is a quorum present 144 members of the House and 34 Senators would, under such rulings, be sufficient.

If 144 members of the House and 34 members of the Senate can propose an amendment to the Constitution and start it on its way for ratification by the States, that action permits 288 members, or exactly two-thirds of the lower house, and 62 Senators, nearly two-thirds of the Senate, to avoid the responsibility of deciding whether or not the amendment is necessary. It was the intention of the framers of the Constitution to require, and we believe the provision was a wise one, that the Senators and Representatives at Washington should take the responsibility of deciding, and that