Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1869-11-06
THE CONSTITUTIONAL CON
VENTION,

VENTION.
Minority Report of the Judiciary
Committee OF the Senate.
The following report was submitted TO
the Senate on Wednesday:
Mr.. SPEAKER-The undersigned, a mi
nority of the Judiciary Committee, sub
NIT TO the consideration of the Senate,
the following minority report The ques-
tons presented to the Judiciary Committee
for its decision:
/. Can a convention of delegates le-
gally assemble in this State, for the pur-
pose Of altering, reforming or abolishing
the present constitution, without the con-
sent of the existing State government,
excepting through the Legislature
,. If a convention of delegates cam
not legally assemble without the consent
of the Legislature; then, if the Legisla-
ture should submit to the people prOpo-
sition, TO vote upon the expediency of
having such a convention of delegates for
the purpose of altering or revising the
constitution of the State, instructing the
delegates to specific amendments, and q
majority of the people voting thereon,
should decide in favor thereof, could such
convention convene in pursuance thereof,
act upon, and propose to the people,
amendments to alter parts of the cOnsti-
tuition not so specified!
8. If a convention of delegates were
not legally assembled without the consent
of the Legislature, what is there in the
constitution that prohibits the Legislature
from adopting specific and particular
amendments to the constitution, and sub
hitting them to the people in a manner
different from that prescribed in sec. 8,
art N, and if 50 adopted by the people,
would it not make them valid and bindingG
These questions demand the most care
full consideration, and upon their proper
solution depends in a great degree the fu-
ture happiness of the people. We should
not permit passion or prejudice to inlu-
ence our judgments, but after careful
review of the arguments submitted, en-
deavor TO ascertain the right-and when
ascertained, fearlessly sustain it.
What we have to say on this subject is
carefully considered-and the result of as
thorough an examination Of the author
tiles as we have been able TO give in the
limited time allowed to us for the investi-
cation.
The first question we shall answer in
the negative-and why2
We have an existing State government
N full force 1t is without doubt vested
with all the power necessary for the sue
cessful maintenance of its existence against
domestic foes, and with force enough
under its laws, TO prevent any unlawful
assemblies seeking its overthrow.
This is a government recognized by
the people, by the judiciary, and by the
government of the United States Irreg-
ular in its inception-justifed alone from
necessity at the time of its origin, yet now
legallzed by acquiescence, and strength
ened by ordinance.
This being our condition, then the ques-
ton is presented, How and in what way
can the people of the State assemble and
inauguTate measures TO alter the funda-
mental law, and effect the notifications
desired by them, growing out of our
changed relationships, without producing
evils greater than those sought to be rene
died
On the part of The advocates for a con-
vention, itais argued that the people, under
the power reserved in the Bill of Rights,
have the unalienabe and indefeasible right
to peacefully assemble, and alter, reform,
or abolish their existing State government,
and that the people have this right even
against the wishes of the established and
existing government.
This proposition is in direct conflict with
all the American writers on the subject.
The weight of authority, establishing be-
yond successful contradiction the opposite
theory, that the people have no such legal
right, unless with the consent of the re-
cOgnized State government; and an assem-
bly, of delegates, without such consent
previously given 10y the General Assembly,
would be illegal, scditiOus, and revolution
arv, and upon demand made by the Gov
ernor, when the General Assembly is not
in session, or by the General Assembly
when in session, the government of the
United States, through the executive de-
partment, would he compelled, upon their
failure to disperse, when ordered so TO do
by the Governor, to suppress their further
meetings by force.
Such was the result Of the celebrated
political movement, inaugurated by
Thomas W. Dorr and the friends of suf-
frage in fhe State of Rhode Island, in
lS4l and 1912, for the purpose of over
throwing the existing State government,
and which was justified by them on the
express grounds
/. That the people had the right thus
peacefully to assemble, even without the
consent of the existing State government
,. That a large majority of HE quail
fed voters of the State of Rhode Island,
at AN election, had ratified and approved
of the new constitution and hence it was
the law of the land and ought TO be inn
plicitly obeyed.
Yet Thomas ". DOT was driven into
exile, and returning was tried in the courts
of Rhode Island for treason, convicted and
Sentenced to Imprisonment in the peni-
Tertiary for life. And the Supreme
Court of the United States, in the case Of
Luther as Borden, 9TH Howard l, met
the arguments urged above in favor Of
the new constitution by saying:
/. That the people of Rhode Island had
no such legal right, except by and with
the consent of the established government
of Rhode Island, expressly given by the
Legislature.
=. That the movement being without
such consent, was revolutionary and in
surTecuOnarv and ought to have been sup
pressed and no legal evidence could bs
furnished that the votes cast were legal
and a majority of the sovereign people,
because the election held was without
authority of law, and could have no bind
mg power or effect.
Such are the authorities, and we should
heed and observe them.
The conclusion we are forced TO il
that no assemblage of the people looking
80 the alteration, reform, or abOlishment
of the present constitution can be tCgdL
unless by and with the consent Of the es
tablished government, and which consent
can in this State be given alone by thu
legislative department, and which con
sent. when given, confers the authority
under the law.
Remember, we do not deny that tn,
people have the Revolutionary right t
alter or abolish their present form OF gov
eminent, because it is so expressly re
served in the "Bill of Rights; but W
are DISCUSSING the legal and constitutions
mode of altering, reforming, or abolishin
the present constitution.
NHutl tA' CONSTITUTION bi 1898, hiuNi
NJ, section 3, the power of amendmen
is imposed ON the Legislature, provide
the entire prescribed forms are pursued
and provided such amendments are nc
proposed oftcncr than once in six years
This, however, is hut the expression o
one mode, and does not, under the vieN
we entertain of the powers of the Gcnera
Assembly, deprive the Legislature of ia
authority imposed under IFS organizatio
Of adopting other means Of attaining IN
same end.