Semi-weekly North-Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1852-1853, 1852-06-30
For the Standard.
Constitutional amendments by Convention and by
Le1isLution.

For the Standard.
Constitutional amendments by Generation and by
Legislation.
The issue that has been made between the par
tes-ihe Wings advocating amendments by an open
ConventiOn-the Democrats by Legislative enact
ments-is to have, as it should have, an important
influence on our State elections. 1t may be useful
to state, and TO understand, the position of parties
Wing Convention declares in favor Of amendments
by Convention the federal basis, whenever a
majority of the people shall demand it; whilst the
Democratic Convention declares itself for Legislative
amendments, and against any disturbance of the basis
of representation in the Senate and House of Com
mons. The Wing candidate for Governor boldly
avowed himself at the outset in favor of this majority
principle, and denounced Gen. S. and every other
Democrat who ventured to call it in question. The
Wing newspapers have followed up the attack in the
most iliberal and disgusting terms; the candidate
has since endeavored to qualify his doctrines, by
saying what the majority of the people Demand two
thirds of the Legislature morally bound grant.
He seeks to shelter himself under the opinion of
those who advocated Convention prior to 1885,
when the Constitution silent to the mode of
effectng any amendments also, that DILL passed the
House at the last sessoD-Mr. McLean's bill
which sanctioned this majority principle. and that
Gen. Saunders and other Democrats voted for ii.
1t seem this gentleman's opinions and notions
very good authority with the Wings, when by dis
torting and disappearing them, they answer to
their faults neither of these subteruges will
avail the Wing candidate There existed plain and
palpable grievance admitted by every of the least
candor-the members in the Senate and House-three
from every County, and then elected without regard
to population taxation This evil in the Consti-
tuition could only be removed by Convention, and
that TO be governed by the majority principle in the
absence Of any other provision. schoo-boy who
could not the distinction between such
that, and the advocacy of majority Convention
now, when the Constitution has pointed out mode
of amendment by Legislation the call of Con-
vention by tsUo-thirds would deserve the LASH And
yet,this Wing candidate and these wise Editors
que and write if such distinction existed.
Are who act with 80 little candor, entitl ed to
respect
attempt at deception, in taking shelter under the
ton Of the democrats, will be equally unavang for
Mr. Kerr and his followers. To expose this attempt
to deceive and msrepresent, 1t will be necessary TO
examine the Journals of the last Legislature and
what done the subject of calling Conven-
ton. Fortunately for the cause of TRUTH these jour
nails witnesses whose credit cannot be impeached
by the assertions of John Kerr however confident
and theatrical their uterance. Before proceeding
this examination, it may be but act of sheer JUS
tice to mention the iberal sneers of Kerrat General
had been consistent in nothing but in taking of
himself. That Gen. S. has held numerous Offices
he may be proud to admit, he has held none
sought lUhch hare not been conferred by his pOi
icaI lends. Can this distinguished patriot, the Wing
candidate for Governor, say much? Has he never
sought office! Not seat in the Legislature from
his native County, Gen. S. did for SIX years. and
that with success. So in Congress, Gen s.. served
extending from the Dan to the Cape Fear whilst
John Kerr has sought the honor, but in vain. So
this distinguished gentleman candidate for So
lictor and beaten by Mr. Poindexter, and stood beg
ging for the office Of Attorney General, which was
given to another; the Wings in both cases having
majority. Cease your carping, Mr. Kerr, about office;
The grapes sour. But to the Journal. 1t shows
that these amendments were offered in the House
substitutes for the Free Suffrage bill. Two of these
proposed distinct cali of Convention, the other to
take the sense of the people on the subject. The
first was Mr.. Rayners 5ill-ProPosing to submit the
question a vote Of the people, whether they ere
for a Convention to be confined to Free Suffrage
alone. The vote stands-Adams, Amis, Rayner and
others. 46 yeas Avery, R. M Saunders and others,
hitting to the people, whether for against open,
unrestricted Convention on the federal basis; if
majority should vote for it, then the Governor was
issue his proclamation calling Convention forth
with. Adams, Amis, Foster and olhers-44 yeas.
Avery, r. NJ. Saunders and others-7O nays. Here
is the Wing proposition, for which the Wings West
voted and the Democrats against Third, Mr. Wi
ey's BILL for taking the vote of the people to a
Convention, and communicating the result by the /
Governor to the next General Assembly. Vote |
Adams Amis, D. Barnes, Wiley and others, 4s yeas.
Avery, Blow, R. NJ. Saunders and others-65 nays !
These different propositions having all failed, the !
Free Suffrage bill passed on the 18th January-75 |
yeas. SO nays-page ISL. The bill was then sent
to the Senate and there rejected. Mr.. Mclean then
introduced his bill, which ''a bill ascertain
the will of the freemen of North Carolina as to the
call of Convention '-and after the it provi-
vided, Sec. 4th, "Mat it shall be the duly of the
Gtuernor 10 communicate to the nerk General assemble
the result Of The uote. - For the bill Adams, Amis
Avery, R. M. Saunders and olhers-67 yeas. ].
Barnes, Blow and others-4O nays. This was on
the 2lst Of January, the very day which the Free
Suffrage bill was reconsidered, and it passed the SEN
ate the next day.
Here is the bill which Mr.. Kerr seeks to shelter
himself under and to justify his support of MAORI
ty call for a Convention; whereas, this bill only
proposed vote by the people and the result to be laid
before the Legislature. very different measure
from that of Mr. Fosters, which is in substance and
fact Mr. Kerr proposton-atter majority shall vote
forSa Convention, it shall be called forthwith Gen.
Sau nders and others might well have voted for Mr..
McLean's bill as likely to operate the passage of
the Free Suffrage BILL ii evidently Gid and the
grounds that he wished to put the Wings the test
and if they would venture to vote for Conven-
lion, reserving to himself the right of voting against
it at the polls and in the Legislature, should he be
member.
This brings up Mr.. Kerr's moral power-doctrne of
majority. If Gen. S. recognised the force of this
he might have been committed by his
vote on Mr. McLean's bill. But he recognises no
such absurdity. 1t was proposed in the Convention
IF 1885, that majority should call Convention.
This voted down by 80 to %, and the twe-thirds
principle adopted. If majority of the people to
nave the right of calling Convention, why not say
10 at once? Why suffer the Legislature to have any
hing to do with it, than to provide for taking
he vote If this be true, what becomes of the re-
tricton imposed by the Constitution, requiring
birds of both Houses. Your taxation principle in
he Senate. and federal basis in the House is GONE .