Boon's Lick times. [volume] (Fayette, Mo.) 1840-1848, 1846-03-21

test Of taking the new one or falling back on
the old ore.
Now, we know several men, considered rea'
sonable, who will vote against the new constitu'
tion--which is virtually giving the old one the
preference. We think, according to the Repub.
leans logic, there will be found great many
unreasonable men in the Stae.-Boons Lick
Times.
Although we coincide with the Times in the
opinion that the new Constitution should be rejec.
ted yet we think that vote against the new
Constitution is not virtually giving preference
to the old one." We opposed the old one, be.
cause under 1t representation could not be equal.
lied, in consequence Of the great increase in the
number Of counties. That instrument recognizes
the Republican principle-that representation
should be in proportion to population-but owing
to the increase 10 the number OF counties, and
the provisions that each county should have one
representative, and the whole number Of repre-.
sentatives never exceed one hundred, the principle
had been violated by several Legislatures, until
small minority had obtained control Of the State
Government, or at least the law making power.
The people demanded that the restrictions should
be removed, so that the principle might operate
fairly and fully. The Convention decided, how
ever, to repudiate the principle, and provide for
perpetual inequality. In voting against the old
Constitution we voted 10 destroy an anti-repub.
| lican violation OF sacred principle, which had
become common with our Legislatures In oppo.
sing the new Constitution, we are defending the
same principle from the outrage sought to be per-
petrated. We are not required 10 express pref.
erence between the old and new Constitution
we are hostile TO both. Reason, consistency,
and common sense demand that the friends Of pc.
l,cal equality, should oppose the outrageous
| Of NlA
Constitution. We cannot shift our ground after
a three years struggle for popular sovereignty.
IL the rejection OF the new Constitution throws US
back on the old one, which has been condemned
by vote Of four to one, the responsibility must
rest on those Delegates in the Convention who
outraged the people by Incorporating anti repub
lican and Ubiquitous provisions into an instrument
which they were instructed 10 frame on Demo-
cratic basis. We will never consentto relieve
them Of the odous responsibility they have as
sumed, and least OF all, 10 do it by sanctioning
doctrine TO which no Republican can give his
assent.
We are aware that it is said there is no proba.
bility that representation will be equalized, e1-
cept by revolution, if the new constitution be re.
jected. One thing, however, is certain; equal
representation will not be attained by rati6ca.
ton Of that instrument. That fact, no sane man
deny, because the instrument declares that three.
ifhs OF the people in one part Of the State, and
less number in still "more favorable localities"
! shall be equal to fve'6 flhs in other sections
. Hence, if we are thrown back on the old Con.
stitution, and should fail to amend il in the way
mode OF proceeding to which we have Just resort.
ed. The old Constitution presented the only
constitutional mode OF amending that instrument.
: The Legislature Of 1928, however, took tho
initiative in revolutionary or extra. constitution.
al proceeding. There can be no doubt that the
people had right to call Convention, independ.
ent OF the act OF 1S43. The Convention so de.
cided, when i: admitted as members thereof per.
sons disqualified by the legislative act. The de.
cison OF the Convention was in reality, that the
/, Legislature OF 1923 had no legitimate power
S over the subject-That the Convention owed its
existence and its power solely to the people, act.
! ing in their original and sovereign capacity. The
new Constitution, therefore, is made revolution.
airy governmen; it originated in civil revolution.
and has been framed by revolutionary tribunal.
When the people shall sgain decide to hold d
Convention to frame government for themselves
they can do so, whether the Legislature is willing
or not. There will be no necessity even in the
worst view Of the case, for any violent action
: A legislative act for the call Of Convention is
it is more convenient for the people to accomplish
their object under such an act, than in it's alb.
sence. According 10 the decision OF the late
} Convention, the act OF 43 was recommendatory,
but it had not the force OF law. A recommends.
ton, then. proceeding from any other body Of
men, would be equally obligatory. Its force is
derived solely from the assent Of the people.
clearly expressed. We refer 10 this fact, merely
10 show that it by no means follows from the re-.
, lection OF the new Constitution that we shall be
compelled to live under the old one, subject
hereafter as heretofore, to the arbitrary control
OF minority.
, But it will be time enough to discuss such
matters when the new Constitution is rejected,
and legislative amendments have been tried again
and failed. The present question is-can free.
man Of Missouri sanction the doctrine that three.
; flhs Of the people in one portion OF the State
are equal to fve-f fhs OF those residing in anoth.
er portion? The effort 10 give the proposition an
alternative form, is mere subterluge, through
which it is expected that the true issue will Be
avoded-an issue which the apologsts OF the late
Convention are very anxious 10 shun. The
mode OF vindicating the principle Of equality
which we have suggested, is even more speedy
than that urged by those who say they will vote
for the new Consiition with determination to
urge thereafter an amendment Of its obnoxious
? features. BY their mode, even under the most
favorable view OF the case, equal representation
cannot be effected so soon by al least two years,
as it can be in the way which we recommend.-
There is another point 10 which we will alluds
hereafter, and which renders the mode urged by