Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1851-03-14
The Constitution and tho Convention aosstion.

In 1904 the Genef0Is assembly OF North Caroliaa
passed an act entitled !" An Act concerning q Con-
venton to amend the Constitution Of the State of
North Carolina" ! bis act provides the mode for
ascertanng by ballot the will Of the freemen of N
Carolina relative to the meeting Of State Conven
ton and authorizes the Governor, in the event of
its appearing that majority of the votes polled are
in favor of it, to issue his wris for the election of
delegates to the Convention, of which two and no
more shall be elected from each county in the State.
Each delegate, before taking his seat swearing or
affirming that he will not directly or Indirectly,
evade or disregard the duties enoined, and the linn
its prescribed to the Convention, set forth laid
down in the act calling the Convention.
The necessary steps were taken in accordance
with this act and on the 4th day of june 1885, the
Convention met at Raleigh, and its members took
the oath prescribed in regard to observance of
the duties and limits laid down in the act The du-
ties enoined and the limits fixed were of two kinds
the first imperative, and the second discretionary
One of the imperative duties is imposed by the act
in the following words:
"XVI. Be it further enacted That the Convention shall
provide in what future made
to the Constitution of the State.''
| The old Constitution made no provision for its
own amendment, hence the necessity of the Conven-
ton of 49, and hence Also the justification of that
act although founded upon no express provision of
the then existing Constitution. The select commit
tee to which this subject referred reported in
| favor of amendment by a majority of all the men,
bers of both Houses of two successive Legislatures
and ratification by the people. Mr. w B. Meares,
of Sampson, moved to amend by substituting for the
report of the committee the provision upon that SUBJ
ject which forms part of the Constitution and
which enacts that no part of the Constitution shall
be altered unless by legislative enactment, by three
ffths of and twothirds of another Legislature,
and ultimate Submission to the people. The re-
port as amended by Mr.. Meares. passed by vote of
III to II. On a subsequent day, Mr.. Meares for
the avowed purpose of restricting the power of a
mere majority, moved, further safeguard against
innovation, that no Convention should hereafter be
called by the General Assembly, except by concur
rent vote of two thirds of each House, which
doped by vote of 90 to 90 So much for the Conven
ton of '35. We have now word two to say to our
contemporaries of the Observer We waive the discus
sion of the relative courtesy displayed by in this
controversy, asodo the pleasure of calling them
our friends, since they object to the expression.
These matters of Importance to our readers,
and it is for them we write we must, however, take
the liberty of correcting them where they, perhaps,
unntentionally misrepresent our meaning We
contend, the Observer says, that Convention
would according to the present Constitution, have
no right to alter any part of the Constitution and
we do because the Constitution expressly says that
part shall be altered unless by Legislative enact
ment. The Observer cannot deny these express and
positive words. No argument can be drawn from
the Convention of thirty-fve, for the not
parallel. The then existing Constitution said moth
ing about amendment. and made provision for it.,
and the Legislature representing the people of North
Carolina, might and did properly understand the
provision in the bill of rights comforting dscre
ton in this matter, which they used by calling q
Convention-one of the objects of which Convention
was to provide definite and ascertaned mode or
method of exercising implied and indefinite pow
er. The Convention expressly charged with the
consideration of this subject and it decided in favor
of amendment by Legislative enactment-saying ex-
pressly that no part shall be altered unless by that
method. No one denies that all political power is
vested in and derived from the people only, but we
hope no one will assert that this power can be
csed in defiance of legal usage constitutional
stricon. This provision of the bill of rights in
existence prior to the Convention of 49, and yet no
pretended that the people could act spontaneous
ly without Legislative action So far from the mode
of amendment by Legislative enactment being an
ADDITIONAL mode of doing what previously could
ly be done by Convention, we find that the positive
enactment in regard to amendment by Legislative
enactment, passed the Convention days before the
clause restricting the Legislature in the calling OF
Conventions proposed at all. And we also doubt
very much whether, prior to 1885, Convention was
the only mode by which amendment could be effect
ed. The people undoubtedly possessed the power Of
altering their form of government, and we humbly
conceive that, in the absence of any definite provi
sion Indicating the mode of exercising that power
the Legislature not restricted to the mode which
it adopted The case is now different; the Constitu-
ton now provides definite mode for exercising a
power unquestionably belonging to the people, and
we must insist that in accordance with the Consti
tuition, that power must be exercised in the manner
laid down and not otherwise. We have been dis
cussng constitutional and not extra constitutional
modes of action, and we wish to be understood
We have never said that the calling of Convention
would as soon as called, nullify the present Consti
tuition. What we have said is, that We do not
pretend to say that Convention might not form a
neU Constitution, but We do think that it could not
consistently with the words of the Constitution make
amendments to the old one" As for new lights, mill
stones etc, we do not well know what to say. We
pretty clear through mill stone when there
is hole in it, but we too conscious of own
of VIC To 4bo