Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1869-11-07

or THE DORg CASE.
The minority of the Judiciary Commit
tee Senators Cooper of Bedford, andNei-
SOM make such astonishing enunciaiions
Of political principle, and an effort being
made by the minority to establish the
correctness of their positions by parade
of high authorities, that We are induced
TO look with little particularly into
those authorities. We undertake to say
that nothing, emphatically and uneqniyo-
oally nothing, can be found in any of the
legal authorities cited that can justify the
bold assumption of the minority that here,
in the State of Tennessee in the year
1869, a convention of the people, "to
alter, reform, or abolish the government
in such manner as they may think
proper" Constitution of Tenn, Art.
L Sec. ~ is the mere crea-
ture of the Legislature. We deny
the doctrine as a whole and in all its parts.
We deny it as an assertion and as an in
ference. We deny its foundation either
in constitution, law or general political
philosophy. We deny if as a principle of
the trainers of our government or recog-
nized view of their descendants anywhere.
Let us see. The leading case of the
minority is that of Luther as. Borden;
the Rhode Island case, or the Dorr case,
as it is sometimes called. Z Howard, c. S.
Supreme Court Reports In order to
Judge correctly of the force of legal
decision it is well TO know the facts of
the case. Rhode Island had no State
constitution. She was living, so to
speak, under Tie old British charter of
Charles Il, granted in 1868. The Dorr
constitution was formed by convention
which professed to be composed of dele
gates elected by the people, but was not
recognized by any law of the existing
government 1t was elected at voluntary
meetings, and by those citizens only who
favored this plan of reform; those who
were opposed to it, or opposed to the
manner in which it was proposed
to be accomplished, taking 10 part
in the proceedings A constitution
was declared to be adopted by the con-
vention after reference to the people.
The charter government which was the
existing State government, and had been
since the Declaration of Independence,
did not admit the validity of these pro-
ceedings nor acquiesce in them. On the
contrary, the Legislature passed resolu-
lions declaring all acts done for the pur-
pose OF imposing that constitution upon
the State to be an assumption of the pow
eTs of government, in violation of the
existing government, and Of the people at
large. In adopting this measure, as well
as in all others taken by The charter gov
eminent to assert its authority, it was
supported by large number of the citi-
zens of the State, claiming TO be a ma
iority. The charter government at its
session of January, 1912, took measures
20 call a convention to revise the existing
form of government, and after various
proceedings new constitution was
formed by a convention elected under the
authority of the charter government, and
afterwards adopted and ratifiedby the peo-
pie This new government went into OPP
Grafton in May, 1913, at which time the
old government formally surrendered all
i;s powers, and this constitution has con-
tinued ever since TO be the admitted and
established government of Rhode Island
1t viii be seen from the foregoing that
this was really a struggle in Rhode Island
between two conventions, each of which
adopted a constitution, each claiming for
itself that its constitution was ratified by
a majority of the people of the State.
The Dor convention was not authorized
by any law of the existing government,
was elected at voluntary meetings, and by
those citizens only who favored this plan
OF reform those who were opposed to it
or to the manner in which it was proposed
to be accomplished taking no part in the
proceedings. The other convention was
chosen under rules and regulations of the
existing Stale government; the times and
places at which heyoteswe TO be given,
the persons who were to receive and re-
turn, etc, were all previously authorized
and provided for by law. The latter was
recognized by the Governor, Legislature
and judiciary of the State. The Supreme
Court of the United States under these
circumstances also recognized the latter as
the legitimate government of the State.
If, however, there had been no opposition
| to the Dorr constitution, although its del
gates were elected at voluntary meetings,
and if the people had ratified their con-
stitution and all the departments of the
State government had accepted it, there
can be no doubt that the Supreme Court
OF the United States would have recog-
nizc it as legitimate and binding.
What was ever more irregular and in
formal than the Tennessee Convention of
1862 1t was not even convened for the
purpose of altering, reforming or abol-
ishing the Constitution, but only to re-
commend to the Governor the calling of a
constitution making convention. 1t was
not authorized by any legislative action.
Its delegates were not elected by the pco-
pie, even at voluntary meetings. Yet it
adopted a constitution which is the aC-
ccptcd fundamental law of the State. OF
that convention Senator Cooper, Of Bed
ford was a member, and both he and Sen
ator Nelson have since served in lcgisla
lures elected under the provisions of that
constitution of 1865 Every Senator who
voted for the minority proposition holds
his seat today by an election held under
the provisions and resolutions imposed by
that convention. If the doctrine of the
minority be the true doctrine, then this is
bogus Legislature, without authority to
pass laws or to elect a United States Sen
atOT
TEE CONVENTION BTEL--TEsE WT-
N0RGTE REPORT--EEsE LAW az
FEE D0EEEs CASE.
We have in another article detailed at
some length the facts of the DoT case,
| ,,.linh j. tl1n lnalinr casn rnlinl 11nnn Lv