Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1830-01-14


which all our authority is derived Let me illusrat,
It. A majority OF freeholders--he did not believe
WORD Ut II himself, but take the thing on it's iace-
majority Of The freeholdcrs had cons. nted. &c
convene Convention TO propose amendments t.
! the old, or adopt new Constitution. Now Sir the
Ireeholders have not yet decided--with a stupidity
worse than that of Esau, give up their brthrieht
fh.s Constitution proposes an extension Of suffrage
al sndcfnifcat. und who to decide Those To
whom suffrage is newly extended! Unqucstonably
no. They had no more right than OHIO or Penn
*yivania-not the shadow of right. But the Con
v';nti N pr posses TO extend suffrage, and who
IN TO decide whether Il shall be extendeds-
Shall they. frum whom. the Convention derives all
MS AUTHORIZATION whom the Legislature dc rived or
hsurped thers--shn they decide if suffrage shall be
eX ended, or they TO whom tho boun is extended,
was hot the mons'rUus injustice md absurdity seen
thar they tr.m whom all authority, incip,cn, and
lnal, Is derived, shall decide, ba, they 10 whom
the boon is extended He beseechcd gentlemen to
rehect--to lay these things their hcarts-it was
manifest that 1t Others than frechoders admitted
one mans right to vote upon the ION was as
good as aHother's. So far were actmy under the
sanction ofthe qualified but We have 40 mower
the Leg,sla'ur' never had-t, betray and dsavow
their constituen's--ltt the eX'c nsion ratified by
the treeholders, there emil ofie-b 1t no her
power under heaven. had the right to decide jim
r ferei e. to the amendment proposed by Mr. Powell
mr.. handoipi, SAID te Legislature could not act.
D. tas usurpcrs. He commented upon the ndcfine ex
tension OF suffrage and the difficulty of ascertainino
WIN had right to Ter the new constitution
II pliers than freeholdrs admitted to vote upon
the ratification, the election duy would ba a chaos
under the new svstem--H. afraid that nsiispo
stion had him from doing ,ustc to the clcar
Idea he had of the subject when he came to the Con
rent'on. But he rcpeated--we were the Trustees
OF the freeho'dcrs and had no right to betray them
We act by their authority and by their au.horitv
alone IL submtted to others, it would be like 9th
er resolutions. Violence would prevail. 1t would be
the law OF force as unjustii .ble amy of Bona
parte, At'ila or Gcnghily Khan.
Mr.. POWELL said Amendments y,s rr,r,,nro
SO was that Of his colleague (Mr. Cooke If the
constitution was not adopted. the provision would
M with 1t. he referred to the law organizing q
Cohvsntion tn show that the privilege of yuttnp
on the ratification. extended expressly to tho
quai;hcd voters. 1t Was said that the &C, of the
gslatnre was usurpation. Graptit to have b.en So
nov d,d the ease stand now9 These very freehold
ers had sanctioned it by majority of 5000. If his
amendment was premature he had no objection 70
wit hdraw it-but 1t ohvatcd the only objection OF
his colleague TO the law.
MIR. Stanard thought it could be made manifest to
Ar. Cooke, that his proposition ought rot now to be
pre- SEQ AS Tar As his memory served HIM the ex
ainp!es from which the article was drawn had no,
occurred until after Constitution was adup, cd
whnn they were annexed scheiule--ue ms. an
ced the case of Pennsylv mil. Under any v cav
whether the provision right not it had bet
ter De Ioreoorne until the Constitution pm ssed
proceeding upon the concession, that all admitted to
suffrage, were to vote on the arificaton of the CON
stluion. Mr.. S. said Legislative action was ind;s
sabe-as some CRIT ri mo It be fixed bv law Ia
ascertain the voters, rulers must be presced to the
officers conducting the election, and sanctions d, o.
vidcd. This was Indispensable a. without it, we
were exposed to the hazard of an indiscriminate
vote upon Che ratification. There was another con
s'dcrat on which he submitted to the candor of the
gentleman from Frederick He could snticinate M
thing m ore fearful, than Conventions assemblnc
without the sanction of law. To prevent this res
pec ought to be.chershed for tho present law-and
was this respect preserved, by adopting prov
sion which superseded the law under witch we were
| assembled? He proposed 20 test the sense of the
Convention, on the proprety of waiting till the Con
ven'lon was adopted, by moving to Law the article
and his proPos ed amendment to it, on the table.
air. Randolph would add but dozen words more
1t was plain that subject was of greater irnpor
lance, and he feared less understood ask, sal,
Mr. H., if we arc empowered to do any thing fna
ana conclusive! We are called in as COUNSEL.
state physicians to prescribe remedies for state disea
SEES hope 1t will be conceded that do r.o ac
binding Hpon tha Legislature or the people. Mr. r. ar
gued some time Jour limits will not alloy us to follow
him. 10 snow, that neither the Convention nor tn,
Legislature, had power to conclude any thing-a
1t would be concluding, TO submit the question O
ratification to any but the freeholders TO refer it t
any other classes. would be TO change the Convention
| from an advisory into controlling counsel.
Mr. Cooke said the question to whom the Constitu
ton should be referred, was not raised by the artic
he proposed. As to that question, il must be settles
| ny the act or the silence of the Convention. Pm
law to organize the Convention gave that BODY
carte Blanche over the subiect-providing that tn
qualified voters should vote on its ratification
or such theirs the Convention deemed expedi
ent If then the Convention SILENT the Law
provided for submitting the Constitution to he rati
fed or rejected by all. admitted by it to suffrage
the Convention chose to xiend IL to such, they wer
sustained by the authority of the law under whic
they sat The Legislature has in terms, transierre
to the Convention the power of designating wh
should vote. Had tho Legislature the right to do SO
Whether they had or had not was immateriaI. as tn
people Ill their sovereign capacity, had ratified tn
act
Mr. c. now varied the proposition by moving,
the first place, to strike the 31st article (prov
ding against inerregnum in the Executive and Jud
clal Departments,) with view insert the articl
ne had offered which provided also against an into,
} regnum i'll the legislative Department..
/ MIR. Leigh Of Chesterfield, said if the Stst artcl
was stricken ont, and Mr.. Cookies substitute for
rejected, that it would be necessary to renstate il
He presumed that all who intended to vol e agans
the substitute, would vote against striking out.
The motion to strike out. was further opposed b
Mr. johnson, and negaived, without 81 count
j. Mr.. Cooke then withdrew his article for the ure
sent
The question now recurring on engrossing th
Constitution,
Mr. Johnson suggested that this was the urope