The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1849-04-14
A Change upon the Question.

! A Change upon the Question.
"On the afternoon of the 22d the ne,
, apportionment bill, which had previous
, ly passed the House, was taken up i
} the Senate and defeated by vote {
f I6 to Is. On the same day Mr.. Goo
dard introduced a joint resolution at
thorizing the electors OF this State I
vote at the next annual election for o
against convention to amend the cor
stitution. 1t passed the Senate wit
only four dissenting voices, and wa
taken up in the House on Friday an
passed with still greater unanimity-
two members only, Messrs. Penning
ton and Phillips, voting in the negative
The change on this question, indicated
by the vote Of the House, was through
mainly by the defeat Of the apportion
ment bill in the Senate. Had that bill
not been defeated, the resolution au
thorizing the vote on the question OF ;
new constitution could not have
| passed."
We find the above in the last Della
ware Gazette, whose Editor was a
member of the House Of Representa-
tives. 1t evidences that which, had il
been the arrangement Of tie democrat
ic party, would have been fiercely de-
nounced as a corrupt "bargain ana
SALE" but now, as movement Of i'm
maculale whiggery, it is coolly stated
to be 'schange on the question:" A
"chaage," indeed! Never did a crimi.
nal upon the block more deeply dread
his "change," than did the federal lead.
ers their change upon the question OF
the new constitution!
In The first place the federal leaders
true to their instructive dread Of the
people, had twice rejected proposition
to submi, the question of convention
to the sovereigns of the State. The
ballot box, the terror OF tyrants, made
them stand aghast-the simple yet po,,
tent yea from the people in favor Of a
convention, they regarded as the fore.
runner OF the day when for special
privileges 10 crush the many, would be
substituting the ancient rights and free.
dom Of the people-the day when the
masses would become re-invested Of
their rights, and corporations and mo-
nopolies made 10 know their places.--
Prompted by these fears, the federal
party resisted and voted down every
proposition TO call convention. Those
were votes Of sincere hostility to a con.
vention, Of honest fear for the correct.
ing band Of the people. The federal
party have no confidence in the people,
hence we find them in all the States
the first TO resist every measure Of re.
form which the progress OF the age de.
mands. For time they denounced,
as most savage Innovation upon pre-.
cedent, the idea Of electing Judicial Off
GERS by the people. 1t was stigmatized
as an unsufferable phrenzy Of locofoco
ism. Yet in various instances that
measure, happily one Of democratic or.
igin, has demonstrated its inestimable
value and harmonious adaptation to our
form of government. The opposition
it encountered from the federal party
arose from an avowed distrust of the
people, natural however, TO that party.
They rely upon corporations, upon
banks, upon the "favored few" clothed
by legislation with privileges wres,ej
from the many, as the most infalliblc
rulers o. the people, and hence every
attempt TO restore 10 them their just
rights is fercely assailed as an emana.
lion from locofocoism, entirely too dan.
gerous 10 be endured.
But our purpose is merely to expose
the insincerity Of the federal party in
voting for the convention resolution.
They voted for it, not oi choice, but
through absolute fear and compulsion.
The truth Of this will be found in the
above. No merit can, then, attach to
the federal party tor the votes OF their
They did not vote for the
resolution because Of its justice, its pro.
priety or its necessity; on the contrary
in defiance Of these influentia land i'm.
perative public requirements, they twice
by solemn vote, defeated similar propo-
,itions for convention. What, then,
was the prevailing motive9 We an
,wsr, in the authoritative language Of
/ member, because thereby ",oas main.
y wrought the defeat of the apportion.
;,ent bill in the SenDte." That reveals
he whole matter. RANDALL, in the
yenute, was pledged to vote for the
county apportionment bill.
TO pfeven! that vote the federal men,
,ers, having twice under their oaths, re-
ected convention bills, yet voted for a