Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1828-1831, 1830-01-16
AtcDs,uoat0 eeaDta.
SATURDAY MORNING, JANUARY Io.-i s,o
TIE CONVENTIONS

Yesterday, Dir. Joyncs from the Select Commit,
tee, reported that they had examined The Constitu
ton and found it trny enrolled-when affcr some
time, and the addition of scroll purport;rp nv
whom at what time, and at what place it wss done.
the President, Mr. Philip 2. Barbour, signed the
Constitution, evidence of its and il
was countersigned by the Secretary, Mr.. David
Briggs. l,.,1 r4
Mr. Randolph nov rose and addressed lbe Conven-
ton at considerable length in support of the PROPOSE
tion that the Constitution could of right be submit
ted to the frecholIers alone for their ratification or
rejection. He contested the idea advanced by MIR.
Johnson, that though the law TO organize Conyen-
ton, had been passed without any authority By the
Legislature, that the defect hud been cured by the
Subsequent ratification of the people, inferred from
their choosing members of Convention, under it. The
frceholders he said had no option left them-they
were Plnced in the situation Of being compelled to re-
jet the law, by refusing to elect members of Con-
vcntion, TO take the alternative, by refusing Of
having n Constitution submitted to the State, by
those portions Of the Commonwealth. They were
compelled to elect members, defendendis. If the
East refused, the West would act under the law and
thus organize western Convcniion-if the Vest re-
fused, the state ofthngs you'd be reversed. He re-
pcated that thefrcchoders had no option of rejecting
the law, by refusing to elect Convention under it, II
they ratif the Constitution there is end Of it-bu,
il was as demonstrable any proposition in Euclid
it was more than dcmonstrable--it was self evident
that other authority but that of the rceoldes was
competent to pronounce the validity, or invaldi,y
the Constitution. The election of the Convention
by tue frccholders, did consecratc-evcn if they
49, 81. .lo ~.
rOnsicrcnce of tho power decide upon tho Consti-
tuition to any other but themselves. The terms were
strong-but 1t trcachery in the Legislature 10
their principals, the frcchoders- to permit any but
principals To decide the question. What Kind Of sub
MISSION said Mr.. r. would be, to submit the Con-
stituiion. those who had no act or part in colnr
tho Convention The people ct OHIO, of Kentucky
OF Japdn-hud good right decide as any others
but The frceholdcrs. %. a.. .. ..H
These views were supported by Dir. Coulter, by
MIR. Mason of Southampton, (wlIo in a lucid speech
explained the with which as Senator ne had
voted for the law TO Organize Convcntion-in or
der to show tho hand, that ho had never in
tended tn invade the exclusive right Of tho fcehodors
tn pass upon the ratification rejection ofthe Con
stituton, and Oh tito other, show that the law die
require others than freeboldcrs to be admitted
but that it left to discrction) by Mr.. Nicholas
aud still farther by Mr.. Randolph. Our limits lhi
morning admit no morc than mere alusion 70 IN,
! Debate.
! Phry we're opposed by Mr. Henderson and Mr.
Stuart, and moro at large by Mr.. Thompson and Nh
JoImson-vho coutcndcd that by tho law to orgn
nize n Convention, IL tho Convention made n
designation of the classes to whom the Coustitu
ton should be submitted those TO vote tn vhor
suffrage by It was extendod--but that dis
croton was given in terms TO tho Convention, .
limit or enlarge these classcs, rs they IT.. As
the authority OF tho act Of Assembly Of 1923, 81
Johnson admitted, (Mr Thompson dissentcd frol
his opinion that the Icgis!itrro bal II, GyJhcf',