Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1854-06-30

repudlated by It's western supporters. In ConVen-
ton the fight would be as to whether the Legisla-
ure had either the right the power to impose any
such restriction, and the West would carry things lis
own way and the basis be overthrow or, taking
the other and more improbable view of The matter,
and supposing, for a moment, that the East should
succeed in maintaining the restriction the Conven-
ton would be far from putting at rest the sectional
lea lousies of those who looked to 1t chiefly, II not
wholly. to work transfer of the whole political pow
er of the State into particular hands and sections
From all this, Free Suffrage by Legislative enact
ment. is exempt. Indeed, Mr.. Todd R. Caldwell, of
Burke, very truly remarked in the Legislature, that,
the East loses nothing and the West gains nothing
| bv Free Suffrage. 1t is simply matter OF equality
between man and man-not a revolutionary element
calculated to disturb the balance of power between
sections.
Finally, Mr. Davis believed tha constitutional re-
forms should always spring from the wants and
wishes of the people themselves, and never be un-
wisely fastened, or heedlessly thrust upon them Tor
sectional purposes for party ends. With all this
we fully agree and from it derive some of the strong
est al guments in favor of the Legislative and against
the Conventional mode of amendment Let oppo.
nents throw what slurs they may upon the origin OF
Free suffrage and the motives OF It's advocacy, the
people have borne very conclusive evidence OF thel
wishes in the matter, and their idea OF their wants
also Tbev have had time to view it apart from sec
tona1 turmoil and the noise and confusion OF Con-
venton and they have pronounced II good Inc
discussion of free suffrage can foment no Jeaiousles
between the East and the West for the simple reason
that it interferes in way whatever win the pa-
ance established between them.
II seems 10 have been the desire of those most eth-
cent in having the Convention of 1885 called, that
some mode should be provided by the ConSttuuon
itself for its amendment on such points as e1pe
rence might deveope, without the necessity OF SUD
hitting the whole fabric to the nnovatng hands OF
convention In an address to the people OF the State
published in 1888, over the signature OF VIM h hay
wood r Richmond Nj. Pearson, Romulus M oaun,
ders, and Thomas Dew, jr this question IS argued
fully and the Legislative mode OF amendment aoVo-
Gated at some length being preferable to that by
Convention and the address subsequently published
in 1884 over the signature of v. H. Haywood, VIM
A Graham R. NJ. Saunders, Weston K. Gales, James
Seawen and VIM. r. HargroVe, says "Experence
has taught US that some mode OF amending the Ion
stituton ought to be pointed out by the instrument It
self To prevent disorder by recurrence to tunda-
mental principles the mode of reform should be made
practicable and, to exclude mere spirit of lnnoVa-
iion il must not be rendered too easy" The mode
at present prescribed by the Constitution meets this
precisely.
. If there be any real changes in the circumstances
of the case since 1882 we confess ourselves unable
TO see them unless it be that the Western friends OF
Convention are more and more IN favor OF change
in the basis and that the feeling IN favor OF such
change has steadily progressed in the meantime
Whether these are exactly the considerations to win
over Eastern men to the advocacy OF an open Con-
vention, we leave others to Judge.
We have noticed chiefly the positions advanced IN
Mr. Davis communication, because they are essen
tialIv those advanced also by Messrs. Cowan and
Meares separated from some rather superf1uous ora
tory and unaccompanied by the bug bear of Drums
wick with reference to which these latter gentle
men are painfully exercised and not without reason
The signs of the times point very strongly to the cleo
ton of Democratic Representative from that coun-
ty and that these gentlemen as fully convinced of
that fact as we can be, is rather amusngIy shown
by their devoting a large part of their respective
communications 10 that cOunty-Whereas the pubIl-
cation by which said communications were drawn
out has not even the most distant reference or alu
sion to Brunswick 1t is named or thought
Of and. indeed, it is difficult to see how the matter
could be appropriated to Brunswick rather than to any
other county, in many of which our circulation is
much larger Nothing but the consciousness OF APP
preaching defeat in that quarter could have suggested
'Brunswick' so strongly to the minds OF these gen
tlemen. By their nervousness upon the subject, one
would naturally be led to suppose that they regard
ed Brunswick as q sort of private stamping ground of
their own, and looked upon the running of Demo-
cratic candidate there something not exactly con-
s.tutionaI So far as interference is concerned
there is more reference (and perfectly gratuitous al
that) Brunswick politics in these letters, than in
our Journal for the last two years
The charge made bv Mr. Cowan that the failure
of Free Suffrage rests with the Democrats is very
sngularly at variance with the record, which shows
democratic vote against it, but the contrary, q
unanmi,y as great upon this question the records
| of any party show upon any question whatever.
The defeat of Free Suffrage in the last Legislature
more Justly chargeabe to the Wing friends OF Con-
vention, who were not satisfied with Free Suffrage,
| but wanted the basis changed.
Mr.. Meares is somewhat mistaken in saying that
we have undertaken to comment upon the opinions
of men in private life. We have commented upon
| published opinions-the opinions of delegates who
publicly refused to attend the State Convention of
their party on account of certain ectionabe resO-
uton,-of delegates whose objections appear to
have been sustained by their party at tho time, and
their positions endorsed, and compare the posi-
tons so endorsed by the Wing party, with those now
held by that party. We might have been justly
amenahe to the censure, implied in some of MIR.
Meares' remarks, of bringing private individuals into
the political arena, had we gone behind the published
record-had we chosen to have gone, as Mr.. MeaTes
! intmates we should have done, into consideration
of the personal views of gentlemen whose Cards we
noticed simply AMI solely because of their evidently
I embodying, at the time when published, the views
of the party to which they then and belong
The miserable blunder,' if there be one is in sup
posing that the reference is made to the private
views of these gentlemen, and not to their published
Cards, in which they evidently occupied the position
of representatives of the views of their party; and
the false idea is in supposng that our obi ect was
to fix their position now-which, We suppose, is thai
OF their party-rather than 10 contrast the strange
inconsistency between the views OF that party IN
1852-as those views were embodied in their Cards
then published-and those promu gated anL
supported by the followers of General Dockery, il
| 1854 We repeat, however, that we cannot see how
those who occupied the grounds they and their party
did in 1852, can support General Dockery, withou
deliberately contradicting their positions then. In
deed, Mr.. Davis frankly admits much, but insist
that further consideration has brought him to beev
that it is proper for him TO do so. We confess our
selves wholly unable to perceive the change of Cir
cumstances upon which he bases his defence Of suc
e change of position However, every citizen is. O
o course, the Judge of his opinions and reason