New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1865-06-05
RIGHT OF sUFFRAGE.
o,iuion Of tho Hon. Reverdy johnson.

..-s ~ tho ste,e "a the condition and qualification Of
$40 r;h. % vote mon the new Constitution" In.
pressed with the gravity of the question: have given
hest consideration and proceed to state i'll as few
cords rs I can. the conclusion TO which have come,
with ny reasons;
In the existing Constitution. such oath the one
IN question required TO Give the right of suffrage Doi
cor voting on the Constitution that might thereafter
be framed under the authority of the Legislature.
Nor did the law passed by the Legislature and under
which alone the recent Convention called elected
and held. authorize euy other qualification for vote On
ne Constitution. tat they might recommend other
than what reQused by the existing Constitution
On the contrary, in this respect its terms are perfectly
plain The sixth section provides THAT the Oons.i'u
ton sad form of Government adopted by the sai Oo"
yenon should be submitted to the legal ana qu"iinsu
voters Of the State ior their adoption or rejecoh'
the LEGISLATURE had The authority so to legisate then
thev have bv doing so, secured 10 every legal ana
oua6ed voter of the State the right TO vote on the
sdonton ar rejection Of the Constitution Audno
one suppose holds that they did not possess the
oower. Indeed. they had no authority except as 1t
might be granted by subsequent popular consent 10
prescribe any other qualification Their powers being
derived from the Constitution, they could not them
solves AXE away any rights of suffrage. For authorize
10 be done by any other body
The rht beirg secured by the organic law. from its
Gerry nature is beyond the reach Of mere legislative
srtbaritv No one can think that they could, by the
mare force of legislation. have extinguished the rlg'
ar cou have authorized the Convection to extingush
II in vote On any Constitution they might propose
The LEGISLATURE were but the agents OF the people ~
whom Trey were chosen. and these we're the then iega
and onaiied voters of the State" How car 1t be that
sssuob agents they could deprive TIER principals OF
rights secured by Constitutional gnaranteef Ana
what difference is there between such an act and that
Of limiting or controlling such rights In my OPINION
such is alike void Of authority.
But the Legislature in the law providing for the Con-
xeptos attempted no such usurpation. On the contrary
e. proyided that the Constitution which that body
might form should be submitted those. and to all of
those rho a, the time Should hare right 10 roie under ne
erisiuS Constitution and to no one else. 1t has been
sarr suggested rather than seriously maintained that
he act Of the Convention in question authorized by
reason of that part Of the law under which 1t was elected
which saws that the Constitution is TO be submitted To
the people set such time in such manner, and subject 10
,ucA REGULATIONS SAID Contention may prescribe This
sureeston il seems 30 me- is wholly without warrant
Tie question is 10 whom and not under what resula
tons the Constitution is to be submitted. And the law
saws that the persons 10 whom the submission IL TO De
made are the legal and qualified voters Of the state
At what time, in what manner. aud under what
regulations. the submission was 70 be made, not
being provided for by any prior law, nor by the
Law authorizing the Convention. it was proper ana
necessary that these should be left 10 the Conyen
ton itself But that this authority was intended to give
TO the Convention the power to exclude from the night
70 vote the persons who by the same lew were secured
In that right cannot be plansbly maintained In
decd so far from this having been the purpose of the
words quoted they used not to take away or i'm
pair the existing right of suffrage but merely TO provide
for the mode Of exercising IL
It's maintained too understand that the act of the
Convention L ON considering has the authority OF
pecedents established in State when the present
Constitution was adopted and in that of Virginia when
her Constitution of ls29-3O adopted. Neither OF
these hos tile slightest analogy 10 the one 10 question
Nomas denies that the American principle IS well
settled that ell Governments originate with the people
and nav bv like authority be abolished or modified
And that il not within the power Of the people even
for themseyes 10 surrender this right, much less 10
surrender for those who are to succeed them pro-
vision therefore in the Constitution OF any one OF the
United States limiting the right of the people to abolish
or modify il, would be simply void And 1t was upon
this ground alone that our Constitution of 70 was super
seeded by that Of 81 In that instance the Convention
which framed the latter chosen under law that rot
only gave them the right to change in al particulars the
existing Constitution but gave that right without lin
iiation restriction
The only restriction TO which II subject came from
another Quaerthe Constitution Of the United States
requiring TO be republican in form. The Consttl-
fon Of $751; therefore rests the inherent and ina len
able American principle that every people have right 10
change their government and is altogether in opposi
ton 70 the present case in which the Convention usurp
power not only not granted but denied TO it by
the very law undx which alone they had the authority
20 act.
The Virginia precedent is equally inappropriate The
principle Just adverted 10 she recognized In Its nature
1t is revolutionary but Notwithstanding that it Is
legal principle The people of Virginia, in 1879 might
therefore have assembled IN mass and changed their
constitution have elected deputies TO meet in con
vention this purposes and in the latter have
provided that the change should be operative ct
without further popular assent that should become
operative when approved by any body they might
designate. The Legislature Of State, in calling
convention it was contended in the debate the ques
fon under consideration held the authority
least Ind it. If the people thereafter assented and that
such assent gvon when under the lew they elected
the members Of the convention. And this view seems
TO me TO be a sound one. But notwithstanding the
terms Of that law (Which will state in nomcnD such
statesmen Randolph. Nicolas Giles and Mason, were
ofthe opinion that the constitution must be decided
upon exclusively by that portion Of the people Of the
State who at the period possessed the right Of suffrage
So far public have recently been advised the
which led the members Of the Convention IN
Gliding Mr. Madison and ChefJus Marshall 10 take
he opposite view have not been presented They were
very clearly and forciby stated in the speeches Of Mr.
Thompson ard Mr. Chapman johnson. Two among