Richmond daily times. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1853, 1851-10-02
Who are 10 uOie on The NelD Constitution

federacy.
Who are 10 uote on The NeD Constitution.
Dr. Thomas p. Atkinson, of Danville, has
communicated to the Danville Register an inge-
NOUS argument, the object ofwhch is to demon
strate, from the phraseology of the schedule at
cached to the new constitution, that the Conven-
ton did not intend the instrument to be submitted
to the voters which it proposes to qualify, as we'll
as to the persons who now enjoy the right of
suffrage. To u.s. who witnessed what was done
in the Convention with regard to this matter, and
know positively that the majority did mean to al
low the new voters to vote upon the question of
ratification, the Doctors demonstration seems not
unlike the famous argument of Archbishop
Whateley to prove that Bonaparte never existed.
The factis, the question was distinctly made, and
new voters to vote upon the constitution itself
was determined upon by decided majority
The clause of the schedule, the construction of
which is disputed, is in these words
The officers keeping said Polls open for the space of
three days. shall then and there receive aud record in
said Foil book, THE VOTES FOR AND AGAINST THIS Cox
UNDER TEE EXISTING OR AMENDED CONSTITUTION, TO
EEcIsE THE RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE
We believe it was Mr.. Bolts who moved to
insert in this clause as reported from a commit
tee the words "or amended'' between the words
existing" and "Constitution;' and the object of
the amendment was universally understood to be
to allow the persons qualified under the new
constitution to vote upon it. The "Supplement, -
if ever reach this point in the debates, will show
that several speeches were made on either side
of the important question thus understood to be
raised, and no suggestion was made that the
words were ambiguous Apart from these I'M
questionable proofs of the real intention of the
Convention, we must confess that Dr. Atkinson's
Interpretation. wonld appear to be nconrovertible
We extract portion of his ingenious essay:
What is "the existing or amended Constitution?
answer, confidently that it is done other than THE
CONSTITUTION OF 1880.
But, say those who contend for different construc-
ton, the terme existing and amended refer to sepa-
rate Instruments
The Grammatical Rule on the proper use of the
conJunctons, ssays "some conjunctons and apverbs
have CORRESPONDING CoNJyNcTIoNs; thus neith-
err requires NOR" aerlt "Eher" requiers cor" as
NEITHER he NOR did it. will EITHER go OR send
But "or' does nor require "either" before it, WHEN
A
As l walked three leagues mile. He belongs
to the African OR Black Here, three leagues
being SYNONYMOUS with one mile. and the African
meaning the same thing as the Black race, the word
either is properly dispensed with.
Ii then the Convention had intended to extend the
privilege of voting on the adoption of the New Con-
stltuon, 10 those who are made voters under that
instrument, they would have used the phrase of all
persons qualified under Either the existing or the
amended Constitution"
But to make the position of those who insist on the
enlarged construction, as strong as it be rendered
will admit that in some when the conjunction
EITHER" is rot used, it may be supplied. The phra-
seoogy OF the sentence under examination, however
shows that this is NOT ONE OF THOSE CASES. If were
written cot all persons qualified vote under the
existing or the amended Constitution" then the con-
junction EITHER" might Be understood or supplied,
but the omission of the article "THE before the word
"ameuded" shows that "EITHEs was not in the minds
Of those who adopted that form of expresslon and con-
sequenty that the word amended" is a mere expla-
nation of its precursor Existing" "The existing or
amended Constitution therefore, The SAME
INSTRUMENT and des gnate NO OTTER THAN
THE CONSTITUTION OF 1880.
This view OF the subject is greatly strengthened by
the consideration that 'THE EXISTING CONSTITUTION
Tor CONSTITUTION OF $780, is technically known as the
"THE AMENDED CONSTITUTION of Virginia" This will
be by reference to the New Code OF Virginia page
81, where read, in the heading of that instrument
itself that "the Constitution Of l776 KNOWN AS THE
OLD CONSTITUTION was in force until superseded by
THE AMENDED CONSTITUTION" or form OF Govern
ment OF Virginia, which on the 18th January 1880,
was submitted and proposed to the people Of Virgin
ia by their Delegates and Representa- ives in Conven-
ton assembled" And, again, "THE AMENDED CoNsrI-
TUITION is follows" Then comes the Preamble to
the Constitution, ending with the following sentence:
''We therefore, the Delegates and Representatives of
the good people OF Virginia elected and assembled in
Convention, in pursuance of the said Act OF Assembly,
a. Ap8GD'C eng pfeq9ss to the people. the following
this Commonwealth; that is to say" &C., &C.
Moreover this PROPOSED CONSTITUTION is NO WHERE
CALLED THE AMENDED CONSTITUTION. In the nstru-
ment Itself il s designated "THE New Constitution"
ana the Schedule is called THE SCHEDULE appended to
THE New CONSTITUTION :; whilst in the Preamble it is
declared that "a Convention held the first Monday
In October In the year 1929 did propose the people
OF the Commonwealth GAN AMENDED CONSTITUTION OR
form OF Government, which ratified by hem; thus
not only recognizing the Constitution of 1880 AS THE
AMENDED CONSTITUTION but using the conjunction COR"
as explanatory OF that term making it the same
thing as form of Government; just as in the phrase
"hicn we are endeavoring to consue, 1t explains the
term EXISTING" to mean the same tho word
"AMENDEp."
Here, then, we have the Constitution of 1776 OR THE
OLD CONSTITUTION, the Constitution of 1880 OR THE
AMENDED CONSTITUTION, and the Constitution oflS5l
OR THE New CONSTITUTION.
Dr. Atkinson proceeds to sustain his construc-
ton by arguing that ander the act of Assembly,
authorizing the call of the Convention, it had no
authority to extend the right of suffrage, and
therefore cannot be presumed to have designed an
illegal thing. The Doctor invites discussion of
the subject, which, being one@of the Judges of
election, he deems one of great public interest
SLAVE CASE AT HARRsEURs-On Saturday after.
noon, four negroe. named John Stoucher John Bell
Edward Michael and Fnton Mercer Who had been
arrested on charge of being concerned in the Chrsti-
ana outrage, were taken before Judge Pearson on a
writ of habeas corpus. There was no evidence
against them, and the Judge discharged them tebuknq
the committing magistrate for committing them with
1ut evidence 1t is said that they are really upjtiye
slaves and that their rest that charge was mere
eyed owners could be informed Of their capture On
heir discharge by Judge Pearson the accounts state
that Commissioner McAlster declared them to be his |
prisoners and had them handeufed. Afterwards they
were examined privately and remanded to their claim.
ants. The affair created much excitement at Harris
burg.