STATE OF VERMONT

A Proclamation

Under date of June 12, 1919, I received from Frank L. Polk, Acting Secretary of State, at Washington, a communication enclosing a certified copy of a resolution of The Congress of the United States of America, entitled “Joint Resolution Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution Extending the Right of Suffrage to Women”, with a request that it be submitted to the Legislature of Vermont for such action as may be had.

I have received requests and petitions from individuals, residing both within and without the State, asking me to call a special session of the Legislature of Vermont to ratify this resolution; and from others, not to call a session for that purpose. Numerous political and other organizations have made similar requests. The importance of this matter demands a full presentation of the facts to the voters of the State and a statement of my conclusions.

The Constitution of Vermont has had the sanction of use and approval for more than 140 years. Careful provision is made in that Constitution to insure extended consideration and deliberation in making changes affecting its provisions and for direct submission to the freemen of the State. The legislature may propose changes, but Section 6 of Chapter II of the Constitution, providing the powers of the legislature, says: “They shall have no power to add to, alter, abolish, or infringe any part of this Constitution.”

Section 67 of the same chapter declares that this Constitution “ought not to be violated on any pretence whatsoever”. The proposed nineteenth amendment to the Federal Constitution would in fact, if adopted, make radical changes in the Constitution of Vermont and in our form of government.

The provisions for change in the Federal Constitution, to which we Vermonters are loyal subscribers, are in conflict with those laid down in the Constitution of Vermont. The Federal Constitution provides that proposals for change therein shall, if favorable action is taken thereon by The Congress, be submitted to the legislatures of the several states for their action, and the Supreme Court of the United States has in a recent decision, Hawke v. Smith, June 1, 1920, declared:

“The referendum provisions of state constitutions and statutes cannot be applied, consistently with the Con- stitution of the United States, in the ratification or rejection of amendments to it.”

This decision leaves the people at the mercy of any group of men who may lobby a proposal for change to the Federal Constitution through Congress and then through the legislatures of the states.

In the face of this situation, I am asked to call the Legislature of Vermont into extraordinary session, not for the purpose of debating, considering, deliberating on the question at issue, but with a majority of its members pledged beforehand and in private, as I understand it, to ratify the proposed amendment.

If the people of Vermont in accepting a place in the union of states, inadvertently lost in whole or in part the right of self-government and conferred it upon the legislature, there is all the more reason why the legislature should not pass upon a question which has arisen since their election and upon which their constituents have had no opportunity to express themselves.

The people are the supreme governing power of the State, and the legislators, under our Constitution, are their representa¬ tives and responsible to the people; yet, it is now proposed that their legislature take action without the sanction of the people and in direct invasion of their rights.

For this reason, I am calling to the attention of the voters of Vermont this all-important proposed change in our Consti¬ tution. It may be forced upon us by the action of other states; nevertheless, it is our duty to know what the attitude of our senators and representatives is upon this subject and to elect men who represent our wishes.

Candidates for the Legislature of 1921 should be required to declare their position on this subject without delay.

It is evident from the reading of the Constitution of Vermont that when the framers of it accepted in 1791 a place in the union of states they had no idea that they were signing away liberties which had been boldly proclaimed and zealously guarded up to that time.

We must now either remodel our own Constitution to conform with the mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States must be amended to provide for a referendum to the freemen of the several states before amendments to that Constitution become effective. As it stands and is interpreted by the Supreme Court today, the Federal Constitution threatens the foundation of free popular government.

The sixteenth amendment, providing for a Federal income tax, was lobbied through Congress and the state legislatures by Federal agents. The eighteenth amendment for Federal prohibition was forced through Congress and the state legislatures by a powerful and irresponsible organization, operating through paid agents with unlimited funds. It is now proposed to force through the nineteenth amendment for woman suffrage in the same manner and also without the sanction of the freemen.

I have been asked to overlook these considerations as a matter of party expediency, but this is a matter of principle, not expediency, and the party that invades a well-established principle of popular government will suffer in the end.

Our Constitution was framed to insure our liberties, not to proscribe them. It means what it says. The rights of the people thereunder must be maintained. I will never be a party to any proceeding which proposes to change the organic law of the State without the consent of the people.

I propose to go and come as my duty calls me, both within and without the State of Vermont, and if any other state officer sees fit, regardless of our fundamental law and his oath to support it, to take action contrary to the terms of this proclamation, he will do so on his own responsibility and be answerable to the freemen of the State.

Given under my hand and the Great Seal of the State, at Montpelier, this twelfth day of July, A. D. 1920. Percival M. Clement Governor Secretary of Civil and Military Affairs