Marshall Opposes United States Constitutional Convention

The opposition to the Assembly resolution of Louis Cuvillier providing for the calling of a Constitutional Convention with the object of repealing or modifying the Eighteenth Amendment has the support of Louis Marshall, it was made evident from a letter he addressed to Assemblyman Samuel H. Hofstadter.

The hearing before the Assembly Judiciary Committee on Wednesday is expected to be one of the most exciting in Albany in many months. Mr. Cuvillier will be backed by at least one United States Senator. He will be attended by several members of Congress. Wayne B. Wheeler, general counsel of the Anti-Saloon League, and William B. Wilson of Pennsylvania, former Secretary of Labor, are among those who have promised to support the opposition. Senator Borah has joined in the debate by letter.

Telegrams made public by Assemblyman Cuvillier show business men divided, many large corporation heads and eminent lawyers not accepting the viewpoint of Louis Marshall and Republican leaders that such a convention, by throwing the door open to general revision of the Constitution, would menace American institutions.

Furthermore it was disclosed the membership of the National Association against Prohibition has been split by a statement issued recently by Charles S. Wood, national campaign manager of that organization, saying it was not in favor of the convention. Mr. Wood’s reasons were substantially the same as those given by Mr. Marshall and Charles B. Hilles.

In his letter Mr. Marshall stated:

“The suggestion that the Legislature of this state shall apply to Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States is most alarming.

“Assuming that the Eighteenth Amendment is objectionable, there is no necessity for resorting to such an unusual procedure for the purpose of eliminating it from the Constitution.

“Article V provides two methods for proposing amendments to the Constitution. The first is by the vote of two-thirds of both houses to the effect that a specific amendment is deemed necessary. The other is when Congress, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments. The first of these methods has been pursued exclusively since 1787, and pursuant to its nineteen amendments to the Constitution has been adopted during the last 140 years. Other amendments have been proposed, but have been rejected.

“There is no practical difficulty in initiating Congressional action in the usual way. If public opinion calls for an amendment Congress will not lend a deaf ear. It is fair to assume that if two-thirds of both houses of Congress shall not deem it necessary to amend the Constitution, that a constitutional convention if called, upon the application of two-thirds of the several states, will be no more likely to propose an amendment to the Constitution than Congress.

“The convocation of a constitutional convention is, however, a serious matter. It is an untried experiment. It might give rise to the most revolutionary expedients. There is nothing in the Constitution whereby the convention, it called, could be limited to the consideration of any specific amendment. The difficulty would be that the call, it made would be for a convention for proposing amendments. When assembled the convention would be a law unto itself. It might propose a revision of the Constitution in its entirety save as limited by the clause ‘that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.’

“It is said that since 1899 twenty-eight states have applied to Congress for the calling of a convention. The latest request was in 1909. In not one of these instances could the application have related to the eighteenth amendment. The occasions for these applications were diverse. Assuming that these state applications could be considered, and including them, two-thirds of the several states shall have applied for the calling of a convention, there is nothing but the self restraint exercised by the convention, when brought into being, to stand in the way of the proposal by it of the repeal of every or any of the amendments of the Constitution heretofore adopted. The nullification of the bill of rights, the complete centralization of our government, the increase or the restriction of the powers of Congress or the powers of the State, of the Executive and of the Judicial Departments or an abandonment of the republican form of government.

“These are not the expressions of an alarmist, but of one who has devoted much study to our political history and who is convinced that there have been occasions in the past when temporary excitement or irritation or monetary fads and fancies might have led a convention to favor the destruction of the edifice erected by the fathers of the Republic. If this method of constitutional revision shall once be acted upon, then one may expect a series of conventions, each of which might overturn the well settled bases of our national government.

“Our State, with its great commercial and industrial interests, with its population of 12,000,000 and with its great accumulated wealth, might especially find its welfare jeopardized by the adoption of the expedient now sought to be set in motion.

“It matters not whether one is wet or dry, whether one favored or opposed the Eighteenth Amendment, it is clear that the question now presented transcends a thousand fold in importance the subject of prohibition or the advisability of amendment of the Volstead act.”