Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1817-01-25
DEBATE
ON THE QUESTION FACONVENITON.
Tuesday, Jdmm,y 81.
DEBATE
SPEECH OF Mr.. COLSTON.

subject, until a few DAYS since when /
understood, from conversation with The
Chairman of the Select Committee, whose
Report Is now under consideration, that
we should not lin consequence of his in
disposition have the benefit of his aitl in
supporting the principles of that Report.
AS member of that Committee, who had
lent much of my feeble efforts TO prepare
anddigest that Report for the House. ]
then tliot 1T incumbent upon re 10 say
something In lis support-So unwilling
was l. SIT, TO take any part in this discus
sion. that had known The course which
would have been pursued bv the able
Chairman oftilat Committee, should still
have relied entirely upon his ability
Bnt, sir, as the view which have taken
OF this subject is essentially different from
his, must trespass upon the patience of
tie Committee, whilst submit my views
10 them. shall, however, carefully aVoid
abusing their indulgence, by a repetition
Of the views that gentleman has taken
Neither will so through the whole ar
gument OF the gentleman from Wythe, q
aitemptregularly and particularly 10 an
swer him but, disregartling minor points.
meet him upon fair and open ground, up
on the principles of his amendments. con
vlnced that 1t can prove these TO he in
correct, every object could possibly
have, will be obtained.
The amendments submitted to tie Com
miitee by the gentleman from WytIe, pro-
pose two great points for our considerali-
on-lst. Whether the Convention. Which
10th that gentleman and myself agree IN
t!nDkingnecessary, should be limited In
the objects submitted To it or not ? And
2dly. Who shall vote in the choice of that
Convention?
In the consideration of The first ques-
ton, we are met at the very threshold, bv
an objection, which it's necessary, i'm the
iirStplace, 10 remove. We are told. that
the Report of the Committee recommends
that the Legislature should limit the Con-
veniion, and then asked, tie Ieoisla-
ture have this power? Such a thing IS not
recommended 10 The Legislature, nor is
1t supposed they have tiiat power. The
people are the source o. all power; before
them, III their sovereign capacity, all law
must bow; they can only be restrained
by those limits which they NAV choose 30
| put to themselves; and la this grea, soye-
reign capacity, The Convention represents
| their power. But the members of fine
Convention are only their representatives
and agents. no doubt can exist that the
| people can give them whatsoever power
| they may deem conducive to theiroWn adj
vantage, and, conrerSo, that they are per
J fectly competent TO restrain them as thev
may think proper; 10 withhold from them
whatsoever they may choose TO think fun
! dameutal; 10 prohibit their touching ,wi;l,
| unholy hands, whatsoever they NAV deem
sacred-I'hese principles areevery where
acknowledged by our present CoRstitu-
ton, and cannot be questioned. The
people, therefore, have the right TO limit
tneragents 10 such specific alterations in
the present Constitution as they think
| necessary, and by those limitations their
| agents are certainly bound. But If will
be said, this, though true oiihe peonle is
not SO of the Legislature, who is the crea-
ture OF tiie people, and can have no right
| 10 limit their sovereign creator. when as.
senIbIed IN their highest capacitv-it is
| true, nor do the Committee assert that
right III their Report. they recommend.
| that 1t should be submitted to tile peoDlp
IN their wisdom, TO determine whether
they Will call Convention for certain
! specinc purposes or If the people
| like not the limitation, they can reject The
| proposal, and Instruct their delegates IN
! the next Assembly to vote for Conyen-
ton, without any Limitation, aud thus VII
ouly be delayed fora shorttime in procu-
ring Their wishes, if they really desire
complete change IN ilie Constitution Of
The country; but It, on the contrary, they
call Convention, for the specific purDn-
ses set forth in the Report, the limita-
ton upon the Convention is their act
and NOT the act Of the legislature.
But, sir, TO what wall The adoption oftbe
Report of the Select COMMITTEE amount
To Legislative expression Of opinion
that certain parts of The Constitution re-
quTe no amendment; that theV ought TO
be retained by The good people OF this
Commonwealth, free from even the ha-
zard OF being impaired Now do the I.e-
gislature think there are any snch E.a-
lures IN he Constitution IF they do.
they surely have a right To express that
opinion; nay, SIR, deem II their duty
Il viii and ought 10 have great Influence
with tho people in inducing them TO re
tain what is valuable, whilst they amend
the defects Of the Constitution but il
the people differ with ms in Ouinion. they
can reject our advice, as | have shown
before.
But another objection is urged apainet
the course recommended by the commit
tee, al objection TOO, which always has
great weight with me, upon all matters If
gnvernmcnf, viz: That it is novel that
snciia thing was never heard Of before.
Us hutcd Convention sir, is
Ike greai many Othernoyelties ofwhich
I hase beard this session, and only new
because Sc have not investigated i'll
appeal 'o ilC history of New y orlt. where.
80 it0i. r. slmildr course was pursued, as
an example IN point.
Having obyiated that objection. and