Republican vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1857, 1850-06-24

Mr.. ED,yoE Il am not surprised 10 find q
djsnoslt,ou manifested III ccli~In QualttIs to
misunderstood and guisreprt SCH! my views upon
the Questions ol Constitutional heloini
II Is charged that III lnY late address Oh ms
sphiPc declared myself an advocate OF a h42h
Droperty qualification III the REPRESENTATIONS
such cll.tige Is misconceptions VI lniscoLottoc-
ion OF the tenor OF my remarks. ii Will be re-
collected by MY impartial hearers, that }hi5
Question was mentioned on1y intellectually Mile
a,yaca,ine the '.u hIte basis representation.
thus in maintaining the White ha6is-bolA on
Tie ground OF pnucIIle and eApedleney-l as
e;tided ali ttala IL re1tIt nee 10 tlie lloFGl'9 III
lere 81 ui the cuul.try-oi the aal9el WHICH eeeitis
10 have been apprtheided IN the convention o.,
1929. | stated thu, even Oh the possibility Oh
ever finding majority OF noii-IIoloilS Aoioe'
it would be next 10 impossible lAat any genera
legislation could b. adopted by men me iislilS
nj I'm. rronerly- holder 0uld be invaded. bHi
IN dftienet 10 hose ho dl1lcred W nh nue., ana
no entertained such appgeAelslo, 5, REMARK
cd that the property qualification IN the rel'le1
sfntHtive. ii retained, ouil ioId sufficient and
ample eecnlity. u
Ikus 10 be explicit, it will appear to all Who
caMIluly considered my remarks, tllilt am '.o
NE odlotaie OF such quaiilcatlou-- plt VA III
advocating the W hlle basls-uha01 Is IN ocot"'oiS
of 1yopertu distinctions m repfeseaddl'o'--l oe-
claIed i cldentaliy, that il II We're shown to be
absolutely necessary to gave protection 70 llo-
perry by amy representation III government; lAtl
II would sui find sufficient even alter giving up
the property basis of representation and suffrage
to retain the property quallllcallon ior ceiialIi
offices as it exists III the present ConstllnIloll'
| have also been represented as 1aVolliS a
veto power for the Governor. But certainly II
cannot even be pretended that am an advocate
for the use OF this power as exercised by some
OF the Presidents oi the United States.
In my address, spoke Of that Objectionable
expedent OF ''log-roling" Which has OF late
been so frequently resorted 10 m oar Legislative
hallsS of The rash precipitous legislation winch
has already involved the State IN a heavy PUB
lie debt. And contemplating the continuance
of such course, and Iii vie" OF me lieNll'pie
ruin that must follow, i considered the suggestion
of MIR. STUART in regard TO vesting some veto
power in the Governor aud so great seemed to
he the evil and the extreme to winch care
,ne;oritu of ::log-rollers" in Legislature might
go-that to make this remedy e1ectnl believed
i necessary 10 90 farther, and require more
than the bare majority OF such a legislature, to
pass such a law over the Governors veto II
The bare majority had been influenced ty local
or unworthy considerations, they would scalce-
" be restrained by the objections OF the Gov
ernor-thereiore ii such plan We're OF any use,
it would only be when carried farther than MI
STUART proposed
plan TO check ':log rolling' and hasiy ie9lsa-
ton, and 10 show its ipetticiency, unless Ii We're
carried to an extent Objectionable in Itself.
then proposed and advocated my own as a bet
ter plan TO accomplish the same end by olAe!ehl
meaus-substantlaIly us follows: With blen-
NAL and limited Sessions OF the Ie2lsia'nFe
with constitutional restrictions on all appioprl-
atoms for heavy expenditure of public money
for instance, to require the same Legislature
which voted the appropriation to provide at me
same time the means Of paying the interest, ana
finally exting'shing the principal aud N Ger,
tain cases OF heavy appropriations iof h'efnai
improvement, to submit II to vote OF lhe Peo,
Die for approval or rejection. This course, l
tontended, will more eaectually accomplish the
desired result, aud with it there can exist no ne
cessity whatever Tor comforting veto power on
the Governor.
In reularisng upon that most extraordinary pro
ducton OF this progressive age--lhe grand Jury
tenure3-l pronounced II without precedent II
the history OF Constitutions. lie Edllor OF me
Spectator, hoWever, pertinaclousy insists, with
out giving his authority, that II exists IN Inc
State Of Missouri. On examination 1t VIII Dc
found that the Constitution OF Missouri, neilhe
contains nor alludes to any slch provision
it exist at all in Missouri, il must only be as al
abstraction not yet legisated into conrIelion'
DAVID FUL1I.
|