Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1817-03-14

cedent is law. because tie correctness q.
the precedent itsel: may be denied; and
then IL becomes necessary Ia examine th,.
principle upon which The precedent is IL
self founded. itshouIi be observed ,;,ai
tits Just as easy 60 examine NE pr:ncip,e
OF the case IN question, as ls,at of the pre-
cedent; and besides, after PROVING tie
correctness oftae precedent, another nro-
cess OF reasoning becomes necessary. 10
prove the analogy otthe two cases. This
process IS often deceptive, in consequence
OF the snbfiety OF the + asonny faculty.
presenting tovicw only the points of res
emblance, Sexclud;ng from view the points
ofdiiierence, lin eases suggested 10 bcanal-
a80us. One operation ofthe mind only
Is necessary TO examine the merits of
the case under consideration bat Il dou-
bic process becomes necessary i'm reason
ing by analogy.
Two precedenis are rclied.unon i'm the
presentc Ease: tue act of the Convention
OF 1870, for calling the Convention which
forsaed the Virginian Constitution, and the
act OF the General Assembly ofi7s7 for
cai!inga Convention TO raiily the Consti-
iuton of the United States. IL is beliey-
ed, that SO far from these being apposife
they vii! be found opposite 10 tile present
case, IN all their most essential features
me act of 1875 was an ici ola Convent
on representing the people in theirhiclest
sovereign character; and not of an orii-
nary legislature, acting under the limited
authority ct Il written Constitution. Ac-
ting III that sovereign character. !, had
tuli power TO call another Convention 10
form Constitution. But this SOVEREIGN
power belongs not TO an ordinary legis-
a,ure, acing under limited powers. Be
siles. The Government had become dis
solved by the abdication of The Colonial
Governor. The mostessontial difference.
IT Is conceived, however, consists in this
that IN 1875 the people performed the
FIRST I. In the present case, il is promo
sed that the Legislature should perform
the first act. in the demolition of GOV
ernmenis and putting revolutions into
motion, the incipient is the most irlnor-
tant act, whatever may be The form of the
disguise It max asspme-for, when re,o-
ln'Ions are once begun, no man can tell
the eccentrcliies OF the revolutionary
spirit. And although it will sot he de-
med, that revolutions have, sometimes.
and may again, by possibility, cventuate
iavoraDiy to the people, yet this always
happens when tile expressions Of the peo
PIE, under the existing government, are so
lntolerable, that any change is found BET
Ter Than tier longer endurance and the
realty oi those expressions affords The
pest assurance OF improving the condiii-
on ct the people by the change. This
reflection forces upon The mind another
striking contrast IN The Two cases supges-
ted TO be analogous IN 1875. the peonle
in their individual characters, not ONLY
commenced the first act of resistance by
every demonstration in their mower. hui
they were goaded TO ii by intoierable on.
presslons were driven 10 ii bv unavoid-
able necessity. Such necessity alone
would have justified The act. In the pre-
sent case, no such necessity is pretended
No such expressions exist--ail is tran.
guilty and happiness. The ground OF
justification for that act was necessity
impe!ied 10y iniolerable expressions: the
ground OF Justification for this, is a ,ch,m-
s.@ai fiolick IF the Imagination. Are these
cases, then, analogous Are thev moi
rather at points directly opposite and mi
lhant! Surely, ii vas a bold effort. in a
bad cause, TO resort 10 so desperate an
eXpedient IN argument. Morris the resrn,-
blance materially greater in the other pre-
cedent. One characteristic difference
between that and the present case. con
slsts in the different organizations of the
then system OF government for the Uni
ted States, in its relation to The state 20
vernments and the people, from The pre-
sent government, Ill both these respects.
The confederation, as it was called, was a
compact between the states. The mea-
sures of the confederacy operated up-
on The state governments in their cor
porate legislative character. and not
upon the people in their individual cha
racters. Hence, when that confederation
ieil 10 pieces from It's Own feebleness i,
was the right oi tie state legislatures Ia
amend its defects by calling a convention
ioribe purpose. II was upon that ground
and for that purpose, that the general
convention, which framed the consiituti.
OH OF the United States, met at PIiladeL
PIMA. When that convention met. If ex-
ceeoed lis original powers BY AMENDING
the articles of confederation as all con.
stIiotions will do, ifit be their pleasure
by annihilaiing them, and substituting in
their stead aplan of government upon an
entire new and different principle. One
which operated upon the people in their
individual characters, and not upon the
states III Their corporate characters. ac
cording TO the articles of confederation
except in CERTAIN cases. This was also
Dictated by necessity; necessity render
ed unavoidable, by the positive ineifici
cncy OF the articles of confederation. de
monsirated by experiment When thi.
constitution was presented 10 the consi
deration OF both legislatures in their cor
poraie characters, and the peoplein thei
individual characters, involving the essen
tial interests of both: If was an art q