Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1817-01-23

indeed. to prove the Convention of i7z5
guilty OF departure fror, ,rine;pics
Of suffrage by which tn n ectcd.-
I'm fact, it proves, that in ylor:ds,.c fo, The
election Of Gnofaer Coarention, they strict
~ pursued the existing laws of suf-
!ragc.
Let The same Journal be Consulted, in
order TO see how they regarded this same
question OF suffrage, in elections to their
own body.-'n page z, appears the Jour
nal OF contested election TO the Conven-
ton of l775, from the county of Berkley.
The sitting members were busted, and
the following resolution adopted Sc Re
soiped, that IL is the opinion of this com
mittee that the election Of delegates for
the county of Berkeley was irregular, and
that the .freehoh!erS of the couDtv, after
due and regular notice being publicly gi-
ven, ought To proceed TO new election OF
delegates, to represent them in General
Convention
Thus, it appears, that the letter from
West Augusta, quoted by the gentleman
from Wythe, is accounted for by the cir
cumstance of its not being an organized
county-and that the Convention ofl775,
whether it looked back to the contested e.
iections Gifts own members, or forwards.
to the election of members OF a new Con-
ventlon, strictly regarded the existing suf-
tra3e OF the county, us established by
law.
But the gentleman contends, that the
precedenfs quoted, prove that the Con
yentlon acted as from authority, aud not
by advice oithe peopIe-That they address
sed themselves in the language of autlio-
rlty, and not of recommendation This
fths,c Il
from precedent, according to my scnseof
that argument.
Ii the Convention of I775, in calling
that of l776 into being, did act by com
pulsory law, can that be viewed as pre-
cedcnt tor a compulsory measure on our
part | answer that it would be so, if O.
Their things were equal; which they were
not. BY the frequent abuses of the roval
authority, the Colonial Government was
left without head. Necessity, which has
no law, commanded that Convention
should be called-Necessity and duty inn
PEELED to the same course. There was
but one way, and the Convention of l775
walked therein.
How is the matter now? The govern
ment Is now in full organization. The
people have been deliberating "a wears a.
bout reformation in the Constitution of
this State-very seriously deliberaiing
these last IA months. Necessity proceeds
with more rapid strides than these. In
fact, IT is not necessity now but policy and
expedlency; and this is the difference
Though we should not al this moment
at, we are not necessarily driven into
anarchy; which, in 1875, was inevita-
BILE.
The Conventions ofl775and l776. there
fore afford the trnnflonan fro,,, NN..+i,o
no precedent.
Then, as to the third precedent relied
on-The call Off Convention TO ratify or
reject the Federal Constitution.-Does
that afford aprecedent for going the length
OF the amendment This question NAV
be answered by asking another Could
the government ofthe United States then
act upon tile people of the States {! They
! could not-Nor, could they act upon the
State sovereignties. They could only re-
solve and advise; and the Federal Con-
ventlon advised the States to submit the
question TO the people in Convention :;
and tile States, although not bound TO
do so, complied.
Let US now see on which side of the
question is the force of fhis precedent ?
The government of Virginia was then. as
now, fully organized. 1t was then, as
now, question of peHcy and Of enpeo;ency,
not ofnecessity and Virginia then fur
| nlshed aprecedent, by which the commit
tee, not the gentleman from Wythe, is
supported. She did not compel, Int re-
commend that the people should elect del
| egates TO a Convention.
The act of the Assembly on this sub
| Ject is III the form of three resolves.-If
will be found III the manuscript Journals
OF this House of the session of 1887. in
pages ~, 4S-25fh Oct. l7S7.-It is in
these words" That il is the opinion of
| this committee, that every citizen, being
| dJIeehoider in this Commonwealth, ought
| TO be eligible TO a seat in the Convention.
| and that the people thereof ought not TO
| be restrained in their choice of DeIegates.
by any Of those legal or constitutional
restrictions which confiDe them in their
choice of Members to the Legisla-
| ture."
" Reso7red, That it is the opinion of this
committee that it be recommended to each
county TO elect two delegates, and TO
each city, town or corporation entitled. or
who may he entitled, by law, to represent
tation III the Legislature, 10 elect one del
egate TO the said Convention"
!" Resotped, That il is the opinion of
tins committee, that fine qualifications of The
eiect0rS be tie same ViM those ,lorc established
by iaw"
will now consider tle amendments :
FIRST, with reference to the Authority of a
delegate.
Secondly. with reference to the prav-
or Of In l.. A