Richmond daily times. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1853, 1851-07-31

80 TIMES, TERMS.
DAILY TIMES, per annum, if paid in advance, or
within SO days from the beginning OF subscribers
The Ne1D Voters.

cents
The Neao Voters.
We remarked Cor intended to remark) yester-
day, that we could perceive nothing better than
sheer Dorrism in the doctrine that Convention
called by the qualified voters of State, to prepare
and recommend for adoption a new Constitution
may determine that others shall have power to
adopt or reject it than those by whose authority
the Convention itself exists. 1t will be remem-
bered that Dorr, the pseudo-Governor OF Rhode
Island, proclaimed the principle that the majority
of men happening, at any one time, to be within
the limits OF community, may, without regard
to the restrictions of the existing form of govern
ment, change that form at their pleasure. Now,
we maintain that this Identical heresy is embraced
in the proposition that the Convention may, with
out vote of the people, create new class of
voters and leave them to decide whether the gov
eminent shall be changed. The body derives
all its authority from the vote of the people call
ing il together, according to the provisions of the
act of the Legislature of 1S49-50. That act con-
tains no provision allowing the Convention to
extend the right of suffrage as to the most i'm
decide. True, the subsequent Legislature OF
l85O-51, did direct that the Convention should
submit the new Constitution to the voters quail
fed under it, or to such voters as the Convention
itself might think proper. But, it is clear that
the Legislature had no sort of authority either to
add to or to diminish the powers of the Conven-
ton, which, as we have sad were derived directly
from the people, and not from the Legislature.
IF the act of the last session has any force what
ever, in this respect, it confers upon the Conven
ton the power ofresiricling, as well as Of extend
Ing, the right of suffrage, which all will concede
to be monstrous. Suppose, for instance, the Con-
vention had chosen to provide that the amended
Constitution should be submitted only to voters
possessing the extraordinary qualification of own
ing thousand acres of land and hundred
negroes: Would any Jurist, or any man Of COM
mon sense, admit that Constitution thus adopted
would be binding upon the people? Such is the
in which those involve themselves
who concede the authority of the Legislature to
empower the Convention to permit others than
the qualified voters to change the government.
Again, if the Convention can enlarge the right
of suffrage to any extent for the purpose of decid
ing upon the constitution, it enlarge it with
out limit. fit can determine that all resident
white adult males may vote upon the question
of changing the government, it may, just as le-
Ultimately, determine that soourn of one day
shall constitute residence, and therefore that citi
zens of other States may come into Virginia and
have voices in the adoption of her new constitu-
ton. Nay more, this Convention might abso.
utely propose to extend the right of suffrage to
he negro populatio and then submit it to the
have the privilege or not.
Are we not justified, then, in pronouncing this doc
rine, which, we regret to say the Convention YES
erday actually sanctioned no better than Dorrism?
We care not how high the authorities that may be
cited in support of it, we contend that it involves
a principle at war with the American theory of
republican government, and, in its tendency, SUBJ
We rsive of constitutional liberty. The precedent of
he former Convention was yesterday very strenu.
ously relied upon by the majority; but it was not
airly in favour of their views. The history of the
matter IS, that the Legislature fir st submitted to
the people the question whether they would call
Convention, The majority of voters responded
in the affirmative. Then, before The ezec.on of
the delegates, the Legislature passe all act pre-
scribng tine powers Of the Convention and nrovi-
ding that the amended constitution should he sub.
mtted to those whom it qualified to vote, which
was done accordingly. But, in the case of the
present Convention the act of the Legislature put
ting to the voters the question whether Conven
ton should be called, prescribed its organization
and functions, and the people endorsed it as it
stood. 1t contained no provision that new voters
might ratify the amended constitution. In one
case, the people called Convention whose spe-
ific character and authority were to be afterwards
Defined and thus an implied power was left to the
Legislature of def ming them; in the other case
the people called Conventio n, whose attributes
were all distinctly declared and the Legisl allure
subsequently interposed to modify them. But, if
the precedent of the last Convention were ever so
Direct we should be for rep udating it atooetber,
and returning to the fundamental principle of our
republican forms, that those only have the ripht
to alter the constitution who derive their authority
from the constitution itself.
We shall be misunderstood if il is sunnosed
from our maintaining these views, that we oppose
the actual extension of the right of suffrage. On
the contrary, we are the earnest advocates of that
reform but we desire to see it effected constitu-
tionally and safely
THE CONVENTION.
The prospect is that the Convention will ac-