The Oxford intelligencer. (Oxford, Miss.) 1860-18??, 1860-11-21

proval, at such time, and IN such manner, as
the Convention may determine" The people
voted for the delegates under the expectation
that the acts of the Convention would be sub
mitted to a vote of the people, as required by
the law but the Convention set itself above the
law and refused to submit its action for the pop
ular approval or disapproval. The reason why
they did so was well known at the time. They
kneo they had misreprcsented the will of the
people, and they dared not expose themselves
to that whitening rebuke which would have been
administered to them at..the ballot-bOx. they
had supposed that the people would ratify their
action, they would most naturally, have been
anxious-eager, even-to have availed them
seIyes ofthe moral support of the popular APP
prevail
The people of Mississippi are emphatically
State Rights people. They believe in the right
of secession. If that question, unconnected with
any other, were submitted to them, it would be
decided. We have no doubt by majority of
more than 10, 900, in favor of the right. The
expediency of the exercise of that right is a very
different question; and no man is authorized to
assume, as it pas assumed by the Union-shrick-
ing wre-pullers in the Convention of 81, that
those who were disposed to acquiesce in the
compromises of 80 were rampant Federalists
like themselves.
SO much for the absurd notion that the peo-
pie of Mississippi have decided against the right
of secession, by IAN express and formal rcpud-
alton" of it. On the contrary, nobody, in this
State having authority to speak for the people
and truly representing their views, could have
denied the existence Of that right, either in 1851
or at any other time.
As to the right of the Legislature to call a
Convention without first consultngsthe people,
we imagine that little need be said. If we refer
to the history of the various Conventions, which,
froia time to time, have been held in the differ
ent States of the Union, we shall find little, in
that history, to sanction the extraordinary doc
trine enuncated in the 9th resolution of thu
Convention of 1851. Had the Unon-savng
leaders ofthat Convention been less blinded by
party rage, less anxious to make point upon
their State Rights adversarics, and less reckless
in regard to the means employed to carry out
their purposes, they might, perhaps, have hest
tated for moment, before they assumed posi-
ton which was equally novel, preposterous, and
inconsistent with the established order of pro-
ceeding in like cases. They did not hesitate,
however, but FASTENED to make themselves ri
diculous, by urging the adoption Of the rcsolu-
ton to which we have referred When "the
old thirteen" States proceeded to ratify the fed
cral constitution, did they first submit to the
people the question whether convention should
or should not be called or did the State Lcgis-
lature, in each instance, peremptorily call tho
Convention, without first consulting the people ?
Was such action ian unwarranted assumption
of power by Chose Legislatures, at war with
the spirit of republican institutions, and an en-
croachmcnt upon the rights of tho people ~
And when we look to the yariaas conventions
that have since been held, in the United States,
without first consulting the people, one would
suppose, that if prac tice and precedent, and au-
thority, and time could settle any thing, the
right of Legislature to call a Convention of the
people, without submitting the question to a
popular vote might be regarded as having been
established beyond all controversy. If the Con-
vention 81 was really and honestly ola differ
ent opinion, we think its members must have
been singularly deficient, either i'll political in
formation, or in the f.culty ofreasoning. How
ever, we have no fault to find with them, or
with their action in the premises. Each men,
Der of the Convention was at full liberty, if he
chose to do so, to write himself down mn ass"
We only protest that the Convention itself was
sissppi were asses also, and that they recog-
nized, as truth, the nonsense contained in the
9th resolution Of the Convention.
Every law, enacted by Legislature, is, and
must be, presumed to be reflection of the pop
ular will. The same presumption obtains as
well in regard to law, calling convention of
the people, as to any other law. The members
of the Legislature, elected by the people, and
constantly mingling with them, are presumed
to be acquainted with the popular sentiment of
the day, in reference to every question of gene
raj interest If the people desire Convention,
their Representatives are presumed to know the
fact and if a Convention is called it does not
become the delegates to that body, because,
forsooth, particular party may have managed
to acquire the ascendancy in it, to denounce the
action of the Legislature in calling them togeth-
er. The Convention is not clothed with author
ity to revise, or even to discuss, that action
but the Legislature, in the absence of any con-
stitutional restriction upon its authority, is the
sole and final judge of the propriety of calling a
Convention. III law, proposing to call a Con-
vention of the people, is to be submitted to the
people, for their approval, before it is enforced
there is no reason why the same course should
not be pursued in regard to every other law
The Convention of 81 might, therefore, without
in anywise adding to the absurdity of its 9th
resolution, have denounced in it every law that
had ever been enacted in Mississippi, as IAN uii-
warranted assumption of power" etc. We arc
aware that, in modern times, practice has pre-
vailed, to some extent, of legislating condition
ally, and in advance or, rather, in ignorance, Of
public opinion. Liquor laws" especially, Of
this character, have been enacted, which were
to be submitted to a vote of the people before
they went into operation and occasional In