Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1855-03-17
REMARKs OF MIR. WINSTON, OF BERTHE GO:
ON TaE SUBJECT OF CONVECTION.

r.. SPEAKER.-SOme
State have recently taken the ground, that the Leg
isature may, by mere majority of the members
present pass bill, by and under which an unlini
ted convention may be called by a bare majority
vote of the people of North Carolina. If this posi-
ton be tenable it Is time that the people of the
State were informed of it. | hazard the conjecture
that not one in thousand, in this State, ever
heard of it before. And, sir, that 1t IS wrong,
think that, even with my weak ability, can show
beyond all doubt
Before the convention Of 1885, our State constitu-
ton was silent throughout, as to the mode Of Its
own amendment. 1t contained no direction express
or implied on the subject.-As the Instrument had
been framed by the people through their agents OF
course the same people had the sole right by
majority of votes to alter, amend and change 1t at
will. The General Assembly very properly " dis
claimed all right and power IN themselves TO aiter
the Fundamental law" and there was positively not
a word in the Constitution requiring any other vote
than majority of the people. There was, there
FORE no other possible mode of amending the Con-
stitution of the State than by the majority pnne!-
pie, adopted at that time. The convention OF 1859
introduced into the Constitution two modes III
which it might thereafter be amended. The man
of calling that convention eau consequently fur
nish no precedent to guide Us now.
The act Of the Assembly calling the convention OF
1885 gave to that convention discretionary power
some sixteen subjects In regard, however, to
four other Subjects the convention were not lett to
exercise their discretion. They were directed and
commanded to act. First, it enacted that said
convention stouEd' adjust the Senate basis, Sc
condy: the like as to the Commons basis Thirdly:
the like to the qualifications Of Senate voters and
fourthly as follows: 80 That the contention shall
q,roUi1e in qcAut manner unlcnMentsSaU III future
be made to Tie Constitution Of the State" quote
the exact language, italicsing it myself Upon this
clause of the act of 1885 nothing has been said by
the advocates of the majority doctrine 1t is strange
that it should have been entirely overlooked, cspe-
cially by gentlemen who have assumed to give III
their speeches the substance of the act of 1884.
Sir, I undertake to say, that when this part OF
&C 1,lpn I'm
pie that there is still another mode Of amending the
Constitution besides the two provided by the COLI
yention vanishes into thin air. The case III Jew
words is this: The people delegated the conven-
ton of 1885 the whole power to do what they
pleased, in regard to the modes OF amending tic
Constitution in future. They not only delegated
this power, but they commanded its full eXeIcl-e
The co invention, in obedience to this command,
sdopted the two modes contained in the COnsttu-
ton. Now, sir it know anything OF language OF
law, those two affirmative modes exclude any and
every other. "L,clusio unus est etclus|0 otteri"s
The Supreme Court Of North Carolina the "tlna
interpreter" would he bound to adopt my reason
ing without any hesitation. And, sir, il there IS
any gentleman in the House who holds the contrary
doctrine, would be glad to know it. Here, Nh
Phillips of Orange, informed Mr.. Winston, that be
should reply to him. and should contend, tirst, that
the Supreme Court could not look at the act calling
the convention in constituting the amendments Of
1885; and secondly that if they could, the clause
Of the act relied did not exclude the call OF con-
vention by other modes than those provided for in
the Constitutional 1 glad, sir, that it IS the gen
tleman from Orange who takes issue with me on
this occasion. His knowledge CT the law and Con-
stitution is such, that he fails to maintain his posi-
ton, it will be because the position cannot be MAIN
tanned. IF Troy could not be defended by Hec-
tor, it could not be defended at ALL"
Before discuss the points made by my friend,
let me ask him to turn his mind to one or two points.
First: as he holds that the face Of the Constitution
is the only guide in constituting it, let him inform
me where he derives the power for the Legislature,
by majority vote, to originate bill whereby a ma
jority of the people call convention. The Consti-
tuition of the State speaks of legislative action, in
regard to this matter, only in two places-My
friend is obliged to admit that he can find nothing
in the Constitution itself TO warrant his position
And sir, as he denies himself the right to look out
side of the instrument he cannot move an inch.
Even the precedent of 1885 (of value when
found cannot be resorted to by him. What addi-
tional vigor validity, ask, can be given to the
proposed convention by act Of Assembly proceed
ing it? The powers of the Legislature well de-
fined in the Constitution and there is not word
said therein of their calling convention except by
q two thirds vote. But it is said that it is
proper for the Legislature to call it. This is yield
ing of the whole argument. The question is one OF
constitutional power, and not CT propriety. I'M
dertale to say that if convention of the people
could assemble without act Of the Legislature,
their action would be valid as if act had pre-
coded and authorized their assembling Judge Gas
on's expressed opinion was, that the act Of 1881
vas /" no more than proposition or q recOmmen-
lation' Suppose that delegates of the people were
10 assemble in Raleigh, could they not make pro-
position recommendation for convention? And,
sir, it is taking the whole question for granted to
say that it is necessary to have act Of the LeGis-
ature in order to direct when, where, ana how the
elections are be held. If the Legislature by the
vote of majority, has power in the premises, |
then what additional force is given to such /
Fention by the act?
Again. Let me direct the attention of my friend !
10 the wording of the Constitution. One clause i;
as follows:
Al. X H.
altered, unless bill to alter the shall have
Assembly, and agreed to by three -fths Of the whole
number of members of each House respectively:
Nor shall any alteration take place until the said
dill, so agreed to- shall have been published six
months previous to election of members to
5he General Assembly. If after such publication,
he alteration proposed by the preceding General
Assembly shall be agreed to, in the first session
hereafter, by two thirds Of the whole representa-
ion in each House of the General Assembly after
he same shall have been read three times on three
several days in each House, then the said General
Assembly shall prescribe mode by which the
amendment or amendments shall be submitted to
he qualified voters of the House of Commons
throughout the State; and if, upon comparing the
votes given in the whole State, it shall appear that
majority Of the voters have approved thereof them
md not otherwise, the same shall become part Of
he Constitution"
Notice the terms employed in this clause. 1t is,
clearly as words can make it, assertion of one
node of amending the Constitution and denial of
VI other modes. 1t was adopted in the Convention
N the 9Th day of July. Now, sir suppose that the
clause just quoted were the only provision contain
ID in the Constitution providing for its own amend