marks on the former, mean certain things, whether straight or crooked, all would be well. Just so it is with regard to the latter. If all agree that the words "the expenses of the members" mean "the expense of each member," the language answers the purpose intended. But the moment a dispute arises, if the literal meaning of the passage in question is not strictly regarded, much can be said upon both sides, or ratber upon all sides of it; and arbitrary marks upon a shingle can be relied upon with as much safety as words upon paper.

As proof of the evils arising from want of accuracy and precision in the use of language, we would refer our readers to the interminable speeches made during the session of the Legislature held in 1830, on the Fifth Article of the Constitution. A difference of opinion arose as to what construction ought to be put upon the language of the Fourteenth Section. Some contended that the words were intended to mean one thing, and others were confident, that they were intended to mean another! The questions which grew out of this could not be settled, except by a "decision" of the Justices of the Supreme Court; and even that was not satisfactory to both sides. If the Judges are to be called upon to decide all the disputable points, and reconcile all the inconsistencies and absurdities, which disfigure our Constitution, they are doomed to "hard labor for life."

But, since language can be made to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the

truth, why should we trust to construction? Why should we leave to chance, what may so easily be made certain?

"SECT. 11. No member of Congress, nor person holding any office under the United States, (post officers excepted) nor office of profit under this State, Justices of the Peace, Notaries Public, Coroners and officers of the militia excepted, shall have a seat in either House during his being such member of Congress, or his continuing in such office."

"No member of Congress," &c. (post offi cers excepted) shall have a seat in either House," &c. According to this, members of Congress, and all other persons holding offices, either under this State, or the United States; civil or military, provided they are "Postmasters," may be members of the Legislature! Really, the "franking privilege" is not the only one which Postmasters, by virtue of their office, enjoy!

"THE HOUSE." What constitutes the "House of Representatives?" The whole number of the members returned? or a quorum? the 10th article of the Constitution provides for the amendment of its provisions in the following language:

"The Legislature, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, may propose amendments to the Constitution," &c.

This language would seem to justify the conclusion that a joint ballot was intended. It should read "two thirds of each House."

.What number of the members is here meant by "two thirds" of both Houses?Apply this language to one House-say the House of Representatives-" Two thirds of the House of Representatives." Are two thirds of the whole number returned under the Constitution, intended? or of a quorum of that number? Inasmuch as the action of the Legislature is not final-as it is only preparatory to the action of the people upon the question submitted to them, there would seem to be no good reason for so rigid a construction of this important provision of the Constitution, as to require two thirds of the whole number returned, to act upon it. Besides, should this construction be adopted, if one member more than one third of the whole number returned, should, from any cause, be absent, the body of individuals usually considered the House of Representatives, (we know not what it would be called in such a case) would not be competent to act upon a Resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution,_as contemplated by that instrument itself! But it may be said, that when "two thirds" of the members present are intended, it is so stated, in the Constitution. We admit that

the phrase, "Members present," " is used in one instance at least; but does it follow, that, because this phrase is omitted in the 10th article, a different construction is to be put upon its meaning? When the loose manner in which the language of the Constitution is put together, is considered, can it rea

sonably be expected, that its several parts will, on examination, be found perfectly consistent with each other, touching any subject?

That the framers of the Constitution did not consider "two thirds" of the whole number of members returned, necessary to form "House of Representatives competent to submit to the people a proposition to amend that instrument, is, we think, evident from the following:

a

ARTICLE IV.

"SECT, 2. Every bill or resolution,having the force of law, to which the concurrence of both Houses may be necessary," &c. "shall be presented to the Governor, and if he approve, he shall sign it; if not, he shall return it with his objections to the House, in which it shall have originated, which shall enter the objections at large on its journals,and proceed to reconsider it.If, after such reconsideration, two thirds of that House shall agree to pass it, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall be reconsidered, and, if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall have the same effect, as if it had been signed by the Governor; but in all such cases, the votes of BOTH HOUSES shall be taken by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons, voting for and against the bill or resolution, shall be entered on the journals of both Houses respectively,"

Here the same language is applied to each House, considered separately, that is used in reference to both Houses," in the section providing for amending the Constitution. Instead of saying two thirds of both Houses, the language two thirds of the House in which it originated, &c., is used. If "two

thirds" of a quorum (or of the members present) is not here considered "THE HOUSE," then two distinct meanings are to be attached to the same words, occurring not only in the same section, but in the same paragraph. The Section commences by supposing a Bill or Resolution to be passed by THE HOUSE" [and Senate], and sent to the Governor for his approval. The Governor, however, does not sign it, but returns it to THE HOUSE" [whence it originated] with his objections.

66

THE HOUSE" proceed to reconsider it-it passes by "two thirds of THE HOUSE" [and subsequently the Senate] and becomes a law. Now will any one pretend that "two thirds," of " THE HOUSE" in which the Bill or Resolution is thus originated, and to which it is the same day returned by the Governor, are not competent to act upon the subject-to make such Bill or Resolution a law? Will any one say that "THE HOUSE" is not " THE HOUSE?" or that "THE HOUSE" at 10 o'clock, is not "THE HOUSE" at 11-provided a quorum of " THE HOUSE" are present?

Art. IV, Sect. 3 says, "Each House shall be the judge of the election and qualification of its own members, and a majority shall constituteca quorum to do business."

This shows what constitutes a quorum, though it directly contradicts the provistions of the 2d Sect. of Art. IV, and the 4th Sect. of the 10th Article-unless it be decided that acting upon a Bill or Resolution returned by the Governor with his objections→ and upon a Resolution proposing an amend

S