Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1855-01-10


proper and Constitutional then-that having been
exercised then Consttutionaly, and never ceded the
right exists to be exercised now as then IN the
same manner
This believe was the substance of his PROPOSE
tions and though not fully stated, embraces perhaps
all his points. Now, sir, his first proposition IS
UNREASONABLE far it goes, but it stops short
too soon. Constitutions be altered in only one
oftwo ways-by lac, or by subversion and reorgan-
izaon, that is, revolution. If by law, then 1t must
be done according to Constitutional mode, if one
exists, and is duly prescribed; if no such mode ex
lists and is prescribed then by the constituted au
thorties empowered in general terms, to take such
action is deemed best for the emergency.
His second position is of course admitted to be
fact of history and his third also, for it was effected
by the constituted authorities in the most proper,
convenient, and only lawful mode then existing
From the conclusion in The fourth entirely dissent
because there having been previously no prescribed
mode, the deduction does not follow for the people
did cede to the Convention of 1885 the power to
make Constitutional provision, the action of the
Convention in so far acas unauthorized. 1t they
ceded this power, the proper and only proper mode
is the prescribed by this action-f they did not
cede it, but hold the full power and right them
selves before, then this action is nullity from
its extraudicia exceeding of authority, which gen.
tlemen will scarcely maintain.
Not having taken notes of the arguments on the
other side shall proceed to examine the Constitu-
tional question without reference, specially to what
has been said any farther and first, let what
is the law The Constitution prescribes in express
terms in respect to the calling Convention thus:
No Convention of the people shall be called by
the General Assembly, unless by the concurrence of
two thirds of all the members of each House of the
General Assembly"
Now it must be allowed, sir, that these words are
very clear, and no reason exists why any difficulty
should occur to their meaning and intent. 1t is
not assumed they are obscure, but it is insisted
that, inasmuch the Constitution does not
prohibit call in any other mode, it allows one
or that although the General Assembly cannot &C
tnally call a Convention, it can suggest a call!
This, sir, really seems to me a most extraordinary
induction. Is it not in effect taking the ground that
a man may procure thing to be done-may inSt-
gate and aid in doing thing, in manner in which
it is unlawful for him to do it himself? The Gen
eral Assembly cannot Gull a Convention by major
ity rote-it would directly violate The Constitution
but this body, gentlemen say, can by such bare
jority vote, suggest the call 1t would be clearly
lawful to take the whole step for calling in this way
so they will stop at three quarters of step, which
may be made to answer we'll
Mr.. Meares, and other members of the Conven-
ton OF 1888, both eastern and western men, OPP
posed to too easy mode of calling another Conven
ton, therefore they preferred to have u two thirds,
not three-ifths rule of majority; yet gentlemen
would infer from single expression uttered in that
body to authorize such Inference that this extra
reservation of power is to be taken by i'm
plication
But, sir as to this mode of prop"si~g. The Con-
sttutlon refers to only competency of the legs
lative department, and that is the call by two
thirds majority; from whence then is it possible to
derive authority for any other?
We are told that, in order to ascertain truly the
proper construction of this instrument VIC must go
back to the body who framed it l do not admit
this as rule indispensable. We may go back, but
not of necessity it is right to go back, but not at
all indispensable. But let grant that it is and
return to the record and cite the able men who for
med this body to come forward here, and answer
for themselves on this very point. We find, when
his matter was taken up in Convention report was
made by committee charged with this especial sub
ect 1t says: "That whenever a majority of the
whole number OF each House of the General Assem-
ply shall deem it necessary to alter or amend this
they may propose such alterations o.
amendments to the people. y"
Why, sir here is the very proposition itself of the
Senator from Orange if not ipsissiis ce, bis GER
ainy so far as to mode; the only difference being
his required proposing of the alterations or
mendments " while the one here under considera-
ion proposes the calling Convention with unres-
rcted power to alter; certainly the objection
be OF the two, since in the case, what is to be
lone is designated, in the other there would be un
limited power to alter.
The next move in the Convention was as follows:
lr. Meares on the part of the minority of the COM
nttee, being opposed to the whole principle of the
eport, offers this amendment:
" No part of the Constitution shall be altered I'M
ess bill to alter the same shall have been read
hree times IN each house of the General Assembly,
nd agreed to by three-ffths of the whole number of
ach house respectively. "
Upon these two questions, the report and amend !
nent, an excited discussion arose, from which ask
o read lew passages. But desire here to call the
PARTICULAR attention of the Senate to most sgnifi-
ant TACT, that the word Convention does not occur
either the report or amendments; and mark sir, |
his important attendant fact aso that this the
ocular report of the committee charged with this |
special and most weighty subject one of all others
Engaging the attention of the Convention to an in
cnse degree, yet this committee suggests but one
manner OF alteration and alnendment-Sy the legis-
alive mode. Is it not strange, if these able expe-
fenced men contemplated the necessity of a Con- |
yentlon, that its very mention was omitted?
Mr.. Meares thought that when the law Of the |
and was solemny fixed it ought not to be disturbed
or light causes and he was unwilling, therefore, to
cave it in the power of bare najorites Of the Leg
stature to bring about another Convention. ="
Mr. CASTOR said " This was one of the most inn |
'ortant questions that had before the Conven-
ion; for whatever benefits may have promised |
ourselves from our labors in this body, in laying the
ouDdations of our Constitution equitable and fair
principles, IT zoe put 1t an the poUer Of bare Iegisln
i0e nedjorities to upset them al then haze zoe toiLed
n cain.
Mr.. Meares said further: " That if there we're any
eal necessity for Convention at any time, there
would be found no difficulty in obtaining it.
In the whole debate on the reports referred to |
Lbove there occurs nothing to sustain the doctrine
II the proposition before US, but much to disapprove
md condemn more than this in the extracts Just
cad, the strongest language is used to repudate it
expressly.
At later day the article came up on it's final read
ng and Mr.. Meares offered to amend-wherefore? Let
him answer" an additional safeguard against the
al principles of the Government and he desires
o amend $50 that no Convention of the neonIa |