The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1868-01-22

| by committee. Indeed, ne OLD not KNOW Dut
that instead Of facilitating, they would not
retard Justice by rushing this resolution
through the convention, as they seemed in.
clined to do, regardless Of the consequences.
Z. 8. Langley {colored), Of Beaufort, said
that he opposed the resolution on two grounds;
first, because he believed the convention had
no authority to legislate in this particular; and
secondly, because a resolution was introduced
two days ago referring the questl9n as 70 the
mittee. There seemed to be party anxious
to ,sh things through which had nothing to
do with the formation Of q constitution, and he
did not believe that such course was consis-
tent with the dignity Of the body, or with their
character as representa- lives OF the people.
J.H. Rainey (colored), of Georgetown, ar
gued that 30 long as the present code OF laws
exists, it nattereG not before what courts cases
might be tried. There would be q certain
amount Of injustice in all until the laws were
revised.
Timothy Hurley (white), thought 1t would be
good idea to read the Reconstruction act for
the benefit OF the convention, and from it they
would probably learn that it had no authority
to abolish any branch Of the civil government.
He thought the District Courts, under the cir
cumstances, quite as good as any others in the
State. and IL i'll became delegates to destroy
That which is good, until they were prepared
to substitute something better IN its place.,
J. NJ Runion (white) thought they had as
much right to abolish these courts as the con-
yention Of 1855 had to create them. Further
moro, he had consulted with his constituents
upon the subject, and the feeling among, them
was unanimously in favor Of the resolution
which he introduced.
=. L. Cardoza (colored), remarked that when
the committee called upon Governor Orr,
invite him to address the convention, til,
matter was alluded to in convention, and that
4l,a nouarpor avnrarcad the ODiniOn that th6
legislature should establish such superior and
inferior courts, as in its judgment were requls-
ite for the administration OF justice. The
Governor, in his conversation, also said that
District Courts were highly improper, highly
Objectionable, and had not accomplished their
purpose. .o,.uos, =, oron,.h,,c
suggested that the convention was here for O
specific purpose, viz: to frame constitution
that would be acceptable to the people, and for
the life OF him he could not See what the
adjustment Of the District Courts, whether
they were to be condemned or approved, had
to do with this clear line OF duty. No ordi-
nance the convention could adopt would have
any effect until engrafted in the constitution
aud ratified blythe people, and therefore this
resolution could be OF no possible use; The
subject belonged exclusively to the legislature
b. II. Randolph (colored), said that on the
score Of economy alone, District Courts should
be abolished and if there was any doubt IN the
minds Of delegates on the subject, Gen. Candy
ought to be petitioned to issue an order to this
end.
DR.. Neagle (white), OF York, thought the
convention was acting too hastily. It WAS true
that public opinion condemned District Courts;
true that they cost the State fifty or hundred
Thousand dollars per annum, but the change
contemplated should be made with care and
dsliberation.
With reference to the right OF the convention
to legislate on this subject he had no doubt.
1t was here to form O civil government. And
what did that mean but to create an organ.c
law, and general laws, and to provide officers
to execute these laws2 The convention had
Jurisdiction over every official position IN the
State, and he (the speaker) could place NO
other construction upon the acts OF congress.
They were here to framo constitution to
establish government, and unless they could
make the machinery to put it in operation they
might as well 60 home. Hence, he argued-the
complete control Of the convention over the
District Courts OF the State.
DIR. A. G. Mackey (President), said he did
not intend to obtrude his views upon the con-
vention, but this was one Of the most import
ant questions that could come before the
body-not 80 much with reference to the prin-
ciple involved in the ordinance itself, prinoi-
ple upon which q very large number OF people
of all shades of political character agree-but
because its introduction is evidence, not only
of an improper desire to legislate upon matters
clearly not within the province Of the conven-
ton, but Of wish to legislate with unseemly
haste.
In regard to the character Of District Courts,
or the necessity for their abolition, he intended
to say nothing. It was not the time or place
to discuss the principles involved. The real
question under consideration was: What right
had the convention to pass any such ordinanoef
Were they possessed OF Legislative powers out
side the specific purpose for which they were
ed that they had such authority, was it the
best way to exercise that power, by thrusting
at once upon the convention, without due con-
sideration, one Of the most important measures
that can command its Judgment
Now, said the speaker, contend that this
constitutional convention was called under the
Reconstruction acts Of Congress and the order
Of General Candy. 1t was called for specific
purpose and no other, and it is Illegal and
wrong for it to adopt any measure which il is
not authorized To review and consider. know
that if should say the convention is possessed
OF Legislative powers, I should be on the side
of what believe to be the heretical political
opinions OF this State. 1 know it has been
generally held in South Carolina that conven-
tions of the people wero sovereign and unlim-
tied in their powers; 80 much 80 that it was
unnecessary their acts should be referred to
the people, because it was deemed they were
the people themselves. But this is an opinion
have never entertained, and one which be-
lieve no jurist in the country would scarcely
hold.
It is generally conceded that conventions are
called to make constiLutions-not to make
laws. This, in my opinion, is the object OF
this body. And yet, critically considered, it is
net even to make constitution. we have not
even the power of declaring what shall be the
constitution of South Carolina. Our powers
are limited here as in every other State, name
ly, to the simple proposition OF what we be-
heve would be proper form OF constitution;
and until the people shall ratify our action, it
will be of no effect whatever. Now, If we can
NOT frame constitution without first submit
ting it to the people, can we undertake to sit
here from day to day, without passing
through the usual forms of first, second and
third readings-ordinance which upset the
very foundations of society; ordinances which
are to destroy courts that for two years have
been in existence, and in which the rights and
property Of many citizens are involvedP
Have we right to declare that those courts
are abolished, without any reference to tho
people, and that "all judgments and DEGREES OF
such courts, rendered after the passage OF this
ordinance, shall be null and vOid?" Have We
O right to declare that we will change the
whole state of society at once!
The gentleman who preceded me admits
that whatever ordinances we adopt must
be submitted to the people. This is great
admission, but it should be followed with the
remark that such boing the case it is wholly
unnecessary for US to pass any such ordinance
as the ono proposed. We have appointed