Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1869-10-30

W + navy hNANNDADAt SAhNA a - AAOP
sis of the bill calling a Convention.
We had intended TO make some Objec-
tions to it, such as are to be found in
the following extract from an article
in the Union and american, with
which we concur. 1t was certainly
understood that il SENTER was elect
ed there would be Q Convention, and
the people voted for il. 1t will be a
work of su~pererogatiOn to take the
vote over again. 1t would be voted
two to one, but We see DC good reason
for a vote at all. Again, we concur
that all whites over twenty-one years
of age should be permitted TO vote.
In a peoples Convention, anything
else would be absurd. The people, by
their representatives, are supposed to
be constructively present en- mGsse.
If they should not vote, they should
not be bound.
Hthey have a right to meet in Con-
vention independent of any action of
the Legislature, and as its superior,
there can be no propriety and no wis
dom in restricting their vote beyond
what has been the long established
usage of the country. The Union and
american says:
The bill reported submits the ques-
ton of Convention" or "No Con-
ventiOn," to the people again. We
take it, with all due Difference, that if
there was any one thing settled by the
last election, il was that we were to
/ have a Convention at tie earliest prac-
ticable moment after the meeting of
the General Assembly. That, the
Governor admits, and all parties ac-
quicsce. About that, there is not the
shadow of a doubt. Then why refer
il again To the people? We are sure
that the Legislature, the people and
the judiciary Committee are all salts
fled that there is but one Opinionupon
that subject. Even the Radicals do
not make any point there.
Hence we suggest that this provision
OF the bill, though comparatively un-
important, be omitted. If, however,
there be amy member of the Legisla-
ture who does not feel that his constit-
Uents have already expressed them
selves upon this point, he ought to
vote to retain that provision in the
bill.
But that is not the feature of the bill
which we regard as especially Obiec-
tiOnablc. The bill now on its passage
restricts the franchise for delegates to
the convention to those who are at
present qualified voters for members
of the General Assembly. We are
confident that this restriction will not
be retained in the bill. Ii is against
the wishes of the people; it is against
the wishes of the Legislature, and
against the wishes of the Judiciary
Committee, and is accounted for only
by the anxiety of the committee to
present the bill in any, even a crude
shape, so As to hasten final action.
The preamble of the bill starts out
with the cnunciatiOn of that funda-
mental truth, taken from the Declara-
ton of Rights, that "all power is in
herent in the people and all free gov
ernments are founded on their author
ity and instituted for their peace,
safety and happiness" and that " for
the advancement Of these ends, the
people have at all times an ~inalienable
ana indefeasible right to alter, reform
or abolish the government in such
manner as they may think proper"
Who are the people? No nan in this
Legislature will pretend TO say that
the last election dad net decide that
(evcn in the 0pion Of the entran-
chised) those who were DISTINGUISHED
by the war, were a substantive, i'm
portant part Of the people. Radical
Ism now cOnlesses this. We believe
there is no organ or member of any
party that dare now to say that the
DISTINGUISHED element in Tennessee is
not a part and parcel OF the people as
referred to and described in the pre-
amble 10 the bill OF which we are
speaking.
1t cannot be said by any one, GER
tainly not by any II who has passed
through the elementary course Of
reading prescribed for a law student,
that the State Constitution of 1863 re-
~stricts the franchise on this subject of
"a convention TO those who are now
voters for members Of the General
Assembly. The constitution of the
State may prescribe who shall be the
qualified voters in State elections
properly speaking. But when that
constitution is to BE remodeled,
changed, altered or reformed, it again
comes back to the people. 1t is for
them again to say what part OF this
power they will retain, or what part
they will yield. To determine that
the DISTINGUISHED shall not vote in the
selection Of delegates is TO decide that
they are not a partOf the people. The
whole people DISTINGUISHED, and all
might meet in convention and deter
mine upon their future constitution,
without consultation with the Legis-
ldture. But this is an organized gov
.ernuncnt, and these are a people Of
order rs well as law. While it would
have been entirely lawful for them to
have met in convention in the aggre-
gate, yet it was deemed best, for the
sake Of order, that the Legislature,
not by virtue Of any interest, power
or constitutional privilege, should pre-
scribe the time and place of holding
the Convention, and the time and
place for holding the election of dele
gates to the Convention. We presume
II was never supposed or intended
that the Legislature should go further
in prescribing the qualification of
voters than TO say that they should be
OF the peOple-that is, twenty-One
years Of age, citizens Of the United
States and residents Of the State of