Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1855-03-17

We need not, however, resort to them, if language
means anything. The point, to my mind, is too
transparent to admit Of any reasonable doubt.
Here, sir, might stop. But my friend from Or
ange will reply to me presently, and will proceed
to meet the points presented by him. First can
the Supreme Court take into consideration the act
Of 1884 in constituting the amendments of 1888. L
say that they not only but they bound to do
so. Nothing is palmer.
What relation did the Convention Of 1885 sustain
towards the act which called them together? Most
assurediy the same in every substantial particular
that the Legislature sustains towards the State con-
stitution. We not to violate the State
constitution. The members of that convention were
that they would not "either directly or lndl-
rcctiy evade disregard the duties cnolncd or the
limits fixed to the convention by the people of North
Carolina set forth in the act OF 1851 which act
was ratified by the people" The State constitution
provides for the origin and existence OF the Leglsa-
ture, giving certain powers and withholding others
The act of 1881 did the things with increased
soIicitude and strctness towards the convention OF
1885 The State constitution was the work of the
people before there any Legislature The act OF
1891 was the work of the people; it called the CON
vcntion into being and gave it certain we'll defined
powers excluding all others In short, If ever there
was delibcrative body on earth with written in
strument controlling, directing and mastering their
action, it the convention OF 1850.
Now, sir, nothing is better established than that
the Supreme Court of this State not only can look
the constitution for every purpose in constituting
the act of the Legislature but they positively
sworn and bound to do The act of 1884 was to
the convention of constitution III every sense
of the word They were but members OF LegIs-
lature subordinate to that constitution VIII the
gentleman from Orange admit that the convention
was limited by the act, as have stated? suppose
that he will Can he then deny so plain conciu-
sion as have drawn? Let him detect any flaw IN
the argument if he | might amplify it by ex'
amples and illustrations; but presume that am
understood, which is all that desire.
But, sir the action of the convention Of 1888, as
expressed in the amendments to the Constitution 1t
self absolutely c0jeS the gentleman to look to the
act of 1881 in order 20 understand this matter. The
preamble to the amendments, which the gentleman
admits is to be res0rtcd to, with the amendments,
states the fact that thc act Of 1884 ratified by
majority of the people, and that, by said vote, the
people declared their will that convention should
be held to consider of the amendments proposed"
What amendments? The ones proposed. Where /
proposed? In the act OF 1881. Docs not every
man here see that the convention here expressly dc
cIares that they but subordinate TO the act, |
and thac the chart Of their power contained III
the act. They also declared that they had made /
their amendments i'll accordance with said acts Let
any man take mp the preamble, to which refer, and
read it carefully and he will find that 1t declares. III
every part of it, the point that contend for. The
Supreme Court of the State has decided that, by
proper reference of one deed to another the descri
tons of the latter Incorporated into c former. |
NOW, sir the Convention OF 1885 could not have
made the stronger, if they hadrepcatcd seriatit
in the preamble, each and all Of the provi-
sions Of the act of 1881. Vet, the gentleman .
admits that the preamble is to be considered but .
denies that the act, which in substance it repeats is
to be looked at. will not say more en- this point.
l have only to say that either the gentleman or my
self is in a decided mistake about it.
take it that the act Of 1854 is to be looked at in
constituting the amended constitution What then is
the construction of that clause Of the act, which
says, that the convention shall provide in what
manner amendments shall in future be made to the
constitution" They shaU provide in aciat manner.
This language is too plain to admit of any simpfca-
ton The words employed convey the meaning SO
clearly that every effort to explain them will OBJ
scure them. The words sin what manner"
strong at least as the words "the manner" would
have been. My friend is too good a philologist to
deny this. If the words ''the manner had been
used then it would have struck every to enquire
why were not the words "a manner or 'some man.
ner' used Why were the words Sin JutHT'e" used?
vt first view they seem unnecessary. The answer
is plain. Before that there was 10 constitutional
provision for amending the constitution. 1t
doubtful how to proceed on the subject? DO not
the words ''in future implicitly, if not expressly
gative repetition Of the mode then pursued? They
knew that they we're then pursuing a constitutions!
mode of amendment they did not. Ii they did,
then their language would nave been, fthcy wished
retain that mode, that the convention should pro-
vide additional modes. If they did not, then, it is
Clear that they wished in future not to be perplcXc.l
with doubts and that the convention OF $50 should
substitute plain Can any read the
whole of this clause and say that the convention did
not have power to negative the mode then pursued?
suppose that the convention of 1885 had, express
er;llS said that other amendment should there
after be adopted than the two contained in the
OF course, they had under this claus,
he power to do so, and SUCH action, afterwards rat
fed By the people, would have been valid. This is
Ill that contend for in this connection.
Take the clause altogether, and it is direction to
he Convention III the broadcast terms TO provide for
lie arA0le subject Of future amendments. 1t was
clearly the meaning OF that clause, that when the
Convention had actc,! it, other mode than
hose provided by them could be pursued.
The only remaining question is this Did the
Convention Of 1885 exhaust their power? Did they
ully execute it? On cXaInnati0n it will be found
hat they did, to all other numerous requirements
Il the act of 1884. Ny friend from Orange knows
90 well that the Supreme Court would here apply
he maxim Of law already quoted, Lnc(usiO uniuS
st ercZusiO altcr;us If [ wish piece of work
lone, may say that my friend, Mr. Phillips, shall
rect the manner in which it shall be done. If he
ives directions, they are to be ob-yed although he
Ices not say in his orders that other plan shall
re pursued. 1t is, however, not necessary to argue
his point it is we'll settled rule Of construc-
ion by every writer constitutional law.
[ say, therefore, that the Supreme Court of North
?aroina would decide that Convention, called by
majority of the people, under an act passed by
najority in the Legislature, would be unconstitu-
onal
But it is said, Mr.. Speaker that the clause of the
Constitution giving the Legislature the power call
Convention is guarded in its terms and that two
birds are required, because the people did not wish
0 be troubled with meeting in Convention, when
yer majority of the Legislature might choose.
his explanation is given, to show that the Conven-
ion required two-thirds vote of the Legislature,
7hile the majority principle, contended for,
'as retained. Gentlemen here find themselves in a