Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1869-11-09

opposed. The people were forced by
power they could not resist to submit TO
the government Of 1861; and that govern
ment lost its vitality SO soon as its physical
power decayed, having no legal existence.
We are next cited to the pseudo State
government of 1865, set up under the lead
ership of johnson, Brownlow q Co., as
precedent warranting the action now pro-
posed.
much regret the manner in which the
governments of 1861 and 1865, were gotten
up, should be cited as precedent for any
thing. as they were conceived in fraud
and sustained by force.
The people were in state of political
ensIavement when the government of 1866
was inaugurated; the men who got up that
government did SO stealthily; the people
had no notice of it, and if they had were
not allowed TO act. But we are told that
the people acqriesced in it. They were
forced to obey it because they were denied
the means of successful resistance.
Aequiescence on the part of the people
so as to establish a government whose
binding force is traced to their consent,
implies more than simply extorted obedi-
ence It naples that they were free to ac-
cept or reject it. That being so the gov
ernment of 1865 ceases to be precedent,
for the people were denied the right to as
sent to, or dissent from it. In my eoncep-
ton of the theory and law of our State gov
ernment the Convention of 1865 had no
more power to do what they did than so
many hacl1men assembled upon the Pub
lie Square of the city of Nashville, or wo-
men of the city assembled in masquerade
ball room. Many of the provisions OF the
| government of 1865 were plainly uncon-
| stitutional in effect. 1t was SO decided In
the case of Garland, reported IN 9Th Wal
/ lace, United State Supreme Court Reports,
| and the State governmentitself was decided
| to be unconstitutional and ire gular, by
one of the best Circuit Judges that sat up
on the bench in this State
| We know that the people of the State con-
| tinually complained that it was not the gov
eminent of their choice, and its existe nee
was alone perpetuated by denying to them
| an equal voice in the affairs of State, a
means which no ends can justify in a re-
publican government.
We are next told in the minority report
that the people can do nothing without our
consent 1t is true that we, representing
| the parent State have a right to call upon
the federal government for troops to sup
press any movement that the people might
inaugurate looking to a change in the form
of government without our consent first
| given; but it is no less true that the federal
government might recognize the govern
ment irregularly inaugurated by the people;
and having the power to main tain II, we
would be compelled to submit. Luther vs..
| Borden, 18th Howard, and case OF West
| Virginia. Congressional Journals OF 1862
-'63 sustain this view.
| The case of Thomas W. Dorr in the State
of Rhode Island, is not parallel with ours
The people of Rhode Island had no politi-
cal rights, except such as were given them
under the charter government, hence they
| had no power to act without its consent
| Not so with US, for in our Bill of Rights,
article l, section /, they have expressly
reserved to themselves the right to alter,
reform, or abolish their form of government
| at will and as a further evidence that it
was contemplated to be done in peaceful
manner, they cite in section of said ar
ticle that the doctrine of non-resistance,
against arbitrary power and oppression is
absurd and slavish.
In this view of the case, all We do by
passing a convention bill is simply to GER
tify to the people that we, as the represent
atives of the existing State government,
| will not call upon the United States au-
thorities to suppress them, but that we give
| the consent of the present State govean-
ment, that they may inaugurate govern
ment of their own choice. If this view be
not correct, then section one of the bill OF
rights amounts to nothing. But We are
told that we have vested in us, by the cleo
tors of the State, all the power which be-
longs to the people, in 50 far as We are not
restricted by a written constitution. But
almost in the same line in which this
astounding declaration is made we are IN
formed that our work must be submitted to
the people, in order to receive Uitdtfty by
their sanction, or death by their dlsap'
proval. So that it amounts to this: we car
do sill that the people can, but we mus
submit our work to them before it has any
binding force. For if we say we can do i
lawfully without submitting it to them
then our fundamental law would be as I'm
II could De 'anefe,.asDtha various statutes
succeeding Legislature, SO that our lives
liberties and property would depend upol
the caprice of each General Assembly, an'
only be safe when the Legislature was no
in session.
Tie Constitution has indeed provided
how the Legislature might change 1t, bu
shows that the trainers of it we're unwilling
to subject it to annual changes; for 1t pro
, yides. in article H, section ), that en-,
amendment proposed by the General As
| sembly should be published SIX month
! | next preceding the next regular election
and if the same were ratified by two-thlrd
! | of the next General Assembly, 1t shout
! even then be submitted to the people be
! fore it could become operative as a part
I the constitution.
To further prevent the fundamental la
: being subjected to repeated changes sai
a section provides that the Legislature shoul
e not propose amendments oftener than ever
six Years 1t seems clear that the abo7
n section was alone intended to preve1
Q | changes in the organic law. But II u
q view submitted by the minority report
| correct. j. e.. that the Legislature ma
a change the constitution at any time, Will
q out any regard to the solemnlty OF II
e forms prescribed in article Al, section
. then we might exhaust the patience OF IL
: people by requiring them to vote eve
II other day on proposed amendments to u
q constitution, thus driving them from u
a polls. so that the will of the few friends
# each amendment would be declared to
the will of the people. Such conciuslC
"a seems at war with all our ideas OF perm
nent government. and therefore would
~ unwise in its practice, even If true.
10 Suppose the people should instruct us,
- thew have retained the right under t
M constitution to do, would we pass a b
oI authorizing them to have convention
they demanded, or would we willfuIly d
:" obev their instructions? As for myself,
90 should disobey no instructions rghtu
d. given me by my people.
We are next informed by the minor
report that this Legislature can do the p'
mn pies will, in the premises, cheaper than
~ convention can do it. This l deny,
, ; cause the delegates chosen by the Peol
II will come here with fixed instructions q
- knowing what to do, will accomplish
much sooner than we, each of whom wo1
,o+ likely wish to tack on some amendment C
M responding with our peculiar notions
10 government.
=; We venture the prediction that this Lee
Ia+ure NAV convene to-day to change the
IA stitution or make anew one, and itwould
az he contaminated in 60 days, while c
80 vention composed of 30 delegates will d
10. | in less than 80.
m We are further told as a reason why
NV LEGISLATURE should assume the grave
'' sponsibilities of changing the constltut
rod that the Convention, if called, may be 9
l Iar tv of some rash act, calculated to dist
ID our harmonious relations with the fed
q A government. s.p
Re- By electing two delegates from each
~, otorial district. you will insure that no I
~ ~, will get into the Convention upon
b;Io ideas. partizan or sectional prejudice. 5
a ai number is amply large to contain all
- wisdom and conservatism necessary to
,h1 accomplishment of the end, while the n
an1 her is not sufficiently large to produce
mn necessary delay The Convention car
,1or no LEGISLATION, not even to the repealln
ainS a single statute, as was fully decided by
IN Supreme Court of Illinois in 1862; Jam'
en- on CONSTITUTIONS Ooi. 1o1i'-o o.t,o,..-,t,5