The North-Carolina standard., 1850-07-17

W
any other delegation of power their discraaion may
suggest, and their wisdom approve. To argue that
it must of necessity be unlimited, is to contend that
the sovereign power itself, is limited, which is ab-
surd, and is to affirm that the General Assembly was
not Tightfully constituted. The fact that first
Conventions not usually limited initiates moth
ing against position. For let it be remembered,
that the people were then, without any organized
government and in electing Delegates to deliberate
on the subject, and to devise the best forms, they
might not have believed it erpedent to limit them.
The aim they had was to avoid anarchy, not merely
to correct governments but if they had desr-
ed to instruct or limit their delegates it con-
veniently practicable, to impose limit, for the want
vention it might be marked out for the sanction of
the people, Does any one deny that it comes within
the province of Legislature prescribe the means
of enabling the people to call a convention? Upon
what principle is this. except that they may, the
peoples representatives, make recommendations for
the sanction of the people9 If they are made and
sanctioned, then by what process it be demon
strated, that such recommendations bestow unlimited
power, when in their terms they specific only !?
Say that the Legislature has recommended the reo-
pie, Convention acithout limit, and they refuse to
sanction it that Immediately after it, they recon-
mend Convention, with power only, to abolish the
32d Article of the Constitution, and this recommen-
daton is confirmed by the people, and Convention
accordingly assembled. Can there be doubt, that
the Convention is strictly limited and that they will
not-cannot exceed their bounds! e! Say that those
who penned this recommendation timid and jealous
of power, superadded that upon the questions SUBJ
miited TO the Convention, their vote shall be final,
but if they shall attempt to do more, then no act of
theirs shall be valid and binding, without the subse-
quent ratification of ma oty Of three fourhs Of the
people, I" even the unanimous assent of the peo-
ple duly elected taken by vote at the polls with
in 80 days after the ad ournment Of the Convention"
Where, and what is the danger of such Conven-
ton?
! But we are not left without the light of experi-
ence to guide this interesting subject. Since
their governments were formed, and the means of
conveniently providing limit were thus furnished, it
has not been unusual with the States to impose it in
! some form. When the Federal Constitution was
proposed the people of the States for their accept
ance, each State called limited Conrention these
Conventions had power to do more than to accept or
rejec: the ,choc plan, as ii rcs poposcd unless was
in cases where the Legislatures recommended that
they might exercise certain other limited powers,
and the people ratified it,
Nc,r York, whose constitution like ours, silent
as to the mode OF reforming it, had experienced the
Inconvenience from her representation that are
now felt in North Carolina, we'll as other incon-
veniences from doubts entertained on another article
of her Constitution. The Legislature recommended
and the people approved the calling of Convention
in 1901 to remedy these evils, but the Convention
was limited 10 these powers and duties only. When
the people of Jirginia called Convention to revise
their Constitution it limited to the duty of franz
ing the amendments they deemed expedent, er pre-
pairing Constitution, and submitting their
work to be approved rejected by these people at the
pols So the Convention regarded it, and SO they
acted. The Constitution of -NcU Hampshire provides
that Contention may be called every seven years to
amend it but the powers of this Convention are ex-
pressly limited by Proriso that alterations shall
be valid until they laid before the people, and
ratified by them. The people Of Georgia have elect
ed delegates to a Convention, which is limited to
specific duties, and was organized by administering
an oath to the members that they will not attempt to
violate the boundaries prescribed for them. In our
Stale we have had two limited Conventions since
l776, the one to consider Of the Federal Constitu-
ton, and permanently to locate the Seat of Govern
ment-the other to reconsider the Federal Constitu-
ton, and to give Fayetteville the right Of eectng
member to the Assembly. But we will not pursue
i. further. No fair mind will demand further proof
that is consistent with both the theory and practice
of our government that the People may limit Con-
rention to specific subjects of consideration, and
whether they will Go not, is question not of
right but of erpediency.
The mode Of altering the Constitution that is re-
commended by the report of Committee in our last
Legislature, may be properly adopted. Why may
not the General assembly submit to the People certain
specific amendments for their adoption? If the Legis
lature may recommend Convention to make amend
mens-or to accept or reject specific amendments,
and the people by ratifying such recommendation
can cause the Convention to be assembled for the
purposes that designated it is difficult to conceive
why the people may not vote directly upon amend
ments proposed to them by the Legislature. 1t is
impossible to maintain contrary position until it
can be shown that the People derire power, and do
not confer it Conrenfions-until it be proved
that the is greater than its creator' that
IS the servant is above his master" The path Of
truth is here also pointed out by experience and
practice. 1t is mistake il we suppose that the
principh Of this recommendation is without prece-
dent The Constitution of Connecticut prescribes
this very mode of making alterations in that insra-
ment. The State of alabama in effect, though not
in words, confirms it by her charter, whilst the
States of South Carolina, Maryland and Delaware
recognize the same right i'll substance, by allowing
changes TO be made in their Constitution by the votes
of two successive Legislatures, the amendments be-
ing published and election by the People having
intervened Thus it is demonstrated that this plan
for amending the Constitution is not liable any OBJ
lection on principle.
Since our Constitution is silent to the mode of
proposing amendments to it, the people are free to
adop any course which is consistent with the princ-
pies of a popular Government, and the practice of
the American States. If this mode of reform is
proper in itself, there views of its erped
ency which give it peculiar claims consdera-
ton. Much difficulty will be experienced in deter
mining after what manner and upon what basis the
People should be represented in COnvention called
for the reform Of existing Constitution and is
not unworthy of our notice that whilst this would
cost nothing, Convention will create some charge
upon the public Treasury. Those who entertain any
real fears of Convention ought object to this
plan. upon the ground of erpediency, they will be
thus shielded against all dangers except" the will of
majority - and even that will be restricted to an
ove or no upon whatever the ruling minority shall
consent to put forth for public sanction. The rights
of the minority, will be protected against encroach
ment by the overbalancing power they have In the
LEGISLATURE that prepares the amendments to be SUBJ
mitted and the rights of majority ara safe IN their
. will nnfon nf Il