Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1869-07-08

to call convention of the people,
and then declares that it will do so;
that it will submit the question to
the qualified voters in the State"
and that it will confine the action
of the convention to the question of
suffrage, "because the prelinihary
proceedings in the Legislature will
be framed with that view and I'M
'derstanding." We cannot ahold
Gov. Senter responsible for such
stuff as. this" The idea that the
Legislature, the creature of the
people, can prescribe what a con-
vention of that people ii in 4 their SOW
ereign capacity shall do or shall not
do, is. supremely ridiculous, The
Legislature has no right to call a
conyentionio of the people to revise,
alter or amend the constitution, as
the Press and Timeso confesses, but
it may suggest that such conyen-
ton is not only desirable but high
Iy necessary, and recommend that
an election for delegates be held
upon a designated day, and that
theeonKention meet on a designated
day.1oThat much the Legislature
may do with propriety. % The
Judges of the Supreme Court
might issue an address containing
such recommendations. A meeting
of leading citizens of the State
would have an equal right to do SO,
and they would possess equal au
thority in the matter with the Lee
gislature. The object of having
the Legislature recommend the
holding of the proposed conven-
ton, is to get an expression from
the people, 'the qualified voters of
the State, if you please, in the
election for members of the Legis-
lature upon the question of a con
vention. There is no doubt now as
to what that expression will be. In
Middle and West Tennessee scarcely
any other than men pledged to re-
commend a convention will be elect
ed to the Legislature, while in East
Tennessee a large vote, if not a ma
jority, will be cast for men who IA
vor q convention. We assume
then that q convention is a fixed
fact. When the Legislature has re-
commended the holding of the con
vention and the time for electing
delegates and for their assembling,
its work is accomplished. A con-
vention of this character is the work /
of the people in their sovereign ca
pacity, and when they resolve
themselves into that condition, who
among them has the right to say
that his neighbor shall not vote
or that he shall not exercise
every right claimed for him
self? Where is the authority |
for interposing any obstacle to the
free exercise of the right of voting 1
for delegates2 When we go back
to the source of ''all power" when
we resolve ourselves into our orr
ginal ele ment of sovereignty, every
man among US is sovereign, the
peer of his neigbbor in every re-
spect, and no one has the power to
with his exercise of every
right pertaining to sovereignty.
That much is by express stipulation
excepted out Of the general
powers of government, and
shall forever remain inviolate," as
well as the furthor guarantee "that
elections shall be free and equal"
We repeat, we cannot hold Gov.
Senter responsible for the crude,
narrow partisan ideas
about convention put forth by his
organ. He is too well versed in the
powers of the people and the lin
tations of government to subscribe
% such doctrine. The truth is, both
organs are "going it blind" on the
convention question, and are in no
ense authorised to speak for the
whose cause they cham
Il