Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1830-01-16
RteDees Otto Saa Dtn.
SATURDAY MORNING, JANUARY Ic, 1880.
THE CONVENTIONS

Yesterday, Dir. Joynes from the Select Commit
tee' reported that they had examined the Constitu
ton and found it truly enrolled-when after some
eime' ana the addition of scroll purportnn by
"hom ut what time, and at what place it was done.
the President, MIR. Philip p. Barbour, signed the
Constitution, as evidence of ts authentcation and it
was countersigned by the Secretary, Mr. David
Briggs.
MIR. Randolph now rose and addressed The Conven
io at considerable length in support of the PROPOSE
uon that the Constitution could of right be submit
Tea 10 the ireeolders alone. for their ratification or
fe]ection. he contested the idea advanced by Mr.
Johnson, that though the law TO organize Conven
ton, had been passed without any authority b. the
Legislature, that the defect had been cured by the
subsequent ratification of the people, inferred from
their Choosing members of Convention under it. The
treeholders he said had option left them-thev
were placed IN the situation of being compelled to re
lJfct the law, by refusing to elect members of Con-
Ventlon, Or to take the alternative, by refusing. of
having Constitution submitted to the State nv
those portions of the Commonwealth. They were
compelled to elect members, defendendis. IF the
Eas; refused, the West would act under the law and
thus organize western Conycntion-ift the West re-
fused, the state ofthngs would be reversed. He re-
peated that theceholders sad option of rejecting
the law by refusing elect Convention under it, If
they rati the Constitution there is an end of it-bn
it was as demonstrable any proposition in Euclid
1t WAS than demon 5le--it was self evident
that no other authority but that of the reehoders
competent to pronounce the validity or invalidity
of the Constitution. The election of the Convention
by the freeholdess, did not consecrate-evcn if thew
were aware of the clause, which they were not-the
trau e Ri, liz
tuition to any other but themselves. The terms were
strong-but it treachery in the Legislature 10
their principals the frcehoders- to permit any bu,
principals to decide the question. What kind of sub
mission, said Mr.. r would it be- to submit the Com
stitutlon, to those who had act or part i'm ano
the Convention? The people Of O1io, of Kentacky.
OF Japa"-had as good right to decide as any others
bnt the frecholders.
These views were supported by Mr.. Coulter, by
MI Mason Of Southampton, (who in lucid speech
explained the views with which as Senator he had
voted for the Law 10 ''organize Cunventiou"-in or
der to show on the hand, that he had never in
tended to invade the exclusive right of the freeboders
to- pass upon the ratification rejection of the Con-
stItutlon and tho other, show that the law did
not require Others than Teeholders to be admitted
but that it was left to dscreton,) by Mr.. Nicholas
and still farther by Mr.. Randolph. Our limits this
morning admit than mere aluslon TO the
Debate.
/ Fhey were opposed by Mr. Henderson and Mr.
Stuart and more at large by Mr.. Thompson and Mr.
Johnson-who contended that by the law to orga
nlze a Convention, if the Convention made nc
designation Of the classes to whom the Consttu
ton should be submitted those were to vote tn whon
suffrage by it extended-but that dis
erection was given in terms to the Convention, t.
limit or enlarge these classes they saw fit. AS Il
the authority OF the act of Assembly of 1929, Mr.
Johnson admitted, Mr.. Thompson disscnted fror
his oPinion.) that The Legislature had 10 uushcry