Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1847-01-21

debates, vol. II, part 1, p. luSo
On this pint he would introduce but one more au-
thority.
In the revision Of the constitution of Virginia a
proposition was introduced before the convention pre-
scrbiag The mode By trhch The constitution should be
amended 1t was rejected on the ground that ma
lority of the people had right at ali times, and in
whatever manner they pleased to alter amend their
constitution, and therefore such provision would be
nuliiy The vote by which it rejected was % for
it, 6S against it. Amongst those opposing II are the
most eminent statesmen of Virginia. To show who \
they are he would read the vote.
"NoEs. Messrs. Barbour, (PresdenD Jones, Leigh
of Chesterfield, Taylor of Chesterfield, Giles, Brod
max, Dromgoole, Alexander, Goode, Marshall, (chief
iusce) TAYLOR Nichols Clopton, Anderson, Coifman,
Harrison, Williamson Baldwin, Johnson. Mccoy,
Moore Beirne, Mason of Southampton Trezvant
Claiborne. Urgehart, Randolph, Leigh of Halifax,
Logan, Venable, Madison, (ex-president,) Stanard,
Holiday, Henderson, Osborne, Cooke, Griggs, Pen
dlcton, George. Byan, Roane, Taylor of Carolina,
Morris. Cloyd, Chapman, Matthews, Oglesby, Dun
can, Laidey, Barbour of Culpepper, Scott, Green,
Tazewell, Loyal Prentiss Grigsby, Campbell of
Bedford, Branch, Townes, Martin, Peasants. Gordon
Masse, Bates, Neale, Rose, Coater and Perrin.
Sill it may be urged that all this is but the right OF
revolution which no denies, but that 1t is not
this right which people exercise IN amending their
constitution. He would ask, then, if it is not this
right, what right is it He maintained that it is the
exercise of that same sovereign power of the people,
ply because in the history of the world tyrans have
endeavored to control the people asserting it, by wag
ING deadly warfare against them. In l716, the dec
aration Of independence was, in itself PEACEFUL and
it was not those who made it, but George III. who
caused those hostilites which we distinguish by the
name of the war of the revolution" But few
greater changes in the principles Of government
could be made than made In adopting the present
constitution of the United States yet that revolu
ton peaceful and midland but the completion OF the
exercise of that right of revolution which was COM
menced In l776. Hence it is that Judge Wilson thus
speaks:
"These important truths far from being merely
speculative we, at this moment, speak and delibe
rate under their immediate and benign influence. To
the operation of these truths, are to ascribe the
scene, hitherto unparalleled, which America
exhibits to the world-a gentle, peaceful, volun-
tary and deliberate transition from constitution
Of government to another, om the confederation TO
the constitution of the United States.) In other
parts of the world the idea Of revolution IN gOOern
nuent is by a mournful and indissolube association,
connected with the idea of wars, and all tie calam-
ties attendant on war.
But happy experience teaches us to view such
revolutions very different light-to consider them
as progressive steps in improving the knowledge OF
government, and increasing the happiness of society
and nd.'-WilsOn's Works, VOL B, p 293-
And again:
"A rerolution principle certainly is, and certainly
should be- taught principle of the constitution of
the United States, and of every State in the Union
This revolution principe-that, the sovereign power
residing in the people, they may change their const
tuition and government whenever they please, as not
principle of discord rdncor lcdr 1t as princi-
pie of moderation, contentment and ace-Wilsons
Lectures, vol. l, p. 2i
Authority of this kind might well settle the ques-
ton whether the right Of revolution is not peaceful
as well as warlike remedy; but he would still fur
Their show it, by brief examination into the nature
of the right.
In Europe the divine right of Kings TO rule had
been asserted and by military power had been main
taind When Payne attacked this assertion. and
declared that the natural right to govern themselves
existed in the people, Burke in reply, insisted that
government derived Its power from heaven. Great
and large as was this statesnans mind, he was
forced TO this untenable, and what appears to
u.s. ridiculous position to avoid, the hand, the
truths of Payne and on the other, the odOus doctrine
of the jure dirino right of Kings. Burke assumed
the position he did, because Europe had not then
hibited the spectacle Of q majority of the people
calmly and quietly reforming evils in their govern
ment but only the attempts of few, vainy strug-
Cling to assert their rights against the armed power
of oppression. The sovereignty of the people Burke
could not therefore comprehend Here, however the
assertion Of the right is not with minority against
majority and therefore, followed by bloodshed: but
a peaceful remedy in the hands of the majority to
remove evils which experience has pointed out in
their government. When, therefore, an American
! speaks of the right of revolution, exercised here
he refers to exercise of sovereign power by peace
ful means; as exercised in Europe by rioent means.
He refers to an exercise Of power here by the
ljority; there by the minority
The right of revolution, then, obtains for the cor
rection of all evils in government; its exercise
belongs to the majority in lesser eus; to the minor
ity, in extreme only, by of those
of strife and violence usual to its exercise by the
minority.
Entertaining these views of the right of the peo-
pie to alter or amend their constitution at any and all
times, and believing the eighth article of consti-
ton, if limitation that right nuly; the ques-
ton then occurs, by what authority this Leglsa-
ture call a convention And this brought him to
The second point, to which he asked the attention
of the committee.
1t has been seen that with us. and under existing
circumstances the right to amend constitution is
a peaceful right. which be exercised by the
majority alone. All admit that the people are sover-
eign; and that their wishes spoken through the
majority only. Mr.. Benton, as we have seen, de-
selves was in the naJority, and they could not be
Invested of it." Judge Wilson says, " of the right
of majority of the rhoe people to change their gov
eminent at will, there is doubt" Now, this ma
ority cannot act by mere plurality, because plu
rality is not known except under constitution In
many States even the constitutions would not permit
1t to decide the most trivial and temporary matters.
In delegated authority it is sometimes allowed but in
sovereign, neUer. Are we authorized, then, by the
majority of the people, to call q convention
AT the last August election there were cast 1876 500
votes, and but 80 521 of them for convention that
is, but little than one fourth of the people.
We were not, then, authorized by them to pass this
bill.
But it is contended here that as the representatives
of the people, we have, In legislative capacity,
the right to call for convention-nay, even to frame
new constitution and present it to the people-for