Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1869-11-11
THECoNvENT1oN QUESTION
SPEECH OF EDMUND COOPER,

| SPEECH OF EDMUND COOPER
In the Senate, Tuesday, NOV. D. 1860
Am Favor of the EsilI i'm Lieu of thG
House Bill, Reported by thc mi.
nOrity Of the Judiciary Committee
The course is plain, simple, limited and
economical-no jar, no discord, but harmo-
NOUS and final The other circuitous, un.
limited-dangerous, because unlimited
and expensive.
Senator's, choose ye between them The
principle is what contend for. The two
or three amendments the minority suggest
are only proposed to meet the present
wants. They are needful They cannot
well await the slow progress of two General
Assemblies. The evils they seek to reme-
dy were foisted on US summariiy. By
the same process we can now free our
| selves from them. Can we not provide
for the people as well as so delegates2 That
is the number now proposed. Can YOU as
semble 90 delegates that can surpass the
Constitutional Convention" now assem-
bled, composed of 100 members?
| And now / meet an argument pressed
| with much zeal on the Senate by the
| Senator from Gibson--that if this power
belongs to this General Assembly Of
| proposing amendments to the fundamental
| law, and their immediate ratification by
| the people, that each and every General
Assembly might propose changes, and there
| would be no stability in our form OF gov
eminent. There is some plausibility IN the
| argument, and yet, whilst he argues with
much apparent sincerity this objection in
| the substitute of the minority he seems to
| entirely overlook the fact that he argues
| and insists that the General Assembly can
| do the very thing that he 80 eloquently
condemns, even in circuitous and expen-
sive way, that is through a convention Of
| delegates, which the General Assembly, I'M
der his argument, may call at any time and
| as often as it should deem necessary and
| proper.
If there be so much danger In the
| exercise of the power in the manner pro-
posed by the minority, when the specific
amendments are known and published,
how much greater the danger when you
breathe life into a political body of such
capacious powers thai it can swallow down
| its throat and digest in its stomach not
only the General Assembly which gives it
being but the constitution officers and
laws.
The argument Is made only to frighten
the timid-not Senators who, knowing their
rights, dare maintain them.
And just here, In passing, let me refer
the Senator from Gibson, when he denies
| that any person has ever claimed for dele
gates in convention assembled the danger
GUS powers described by the minority in
their report, to Jamison's work, pages 292
ct seq, and to the argument of the Senator
| from McMinn. The Senator from Gibson
insists that the delegates in convention are
necessarily instructed, but he does not in
form us how, other than as argued by the
minority, when imposedby the Legislature
calling the Convention, and thereby yields
the question of power at once, only differ
ing with US as to the expediency Of using
it, while the Senator from McAIinn insists
that the delegates are only instructed by
the Constitution of the United States and
their own discretion.
The unlimited powers, as suggested by
u.s. have been claimed By high authority.
In the convention of 1347 Mr. Peters
said
I'VE are the sovereignty of the State;
we are what the people of the State would
be II they were congTegated here in one
mass; we are what Louis XIV. said he was;
we are the State. We can trample the con-
sttution under our feet as waste paper, and
no one can call US TO account.
And on the 9TH day of September, 1886,
George M. Dallas, at one time Yice-Presi-
dent Of the United States, wrote:
"A convention is the providedmachinery
of peaceful revolution. 1t is ths civilized
substitute for intestine war. When ours
| shall assemble it will possess with
in the territory of Pennsylvania
every attribute of absolute sovereignty
except such as may have been yield
ed and are contained in the Constitution Of
the United States. What may it not do
1t may Teorganize our entire system of
social existence, terminating and pro-
| seribing what is deemed injurious, and
establishing what is preferred. 1t might
restore the institution of slavery amoUg
us it might make our penal code as
bloody as Draco it might withdraw the
| charter of the cities; it might supersede
| our standing judiciary; it might pro-
| hbit particular professions and trades
it might permanently suspend the priv
| lege of the writ of hd5eds corpus and take
from US the trial by jury. These are il
| lustrations of the inherent and boundless
| powers Of a convention
l hope the Senator from Gibson is sat
| isfied, from an examination of these au-
thorities, which we urged in our report,
| that such claims were assumed and
commended and in most OF which the
Senator from McAIinn agrees.
The Senator from Gibson regrets that
the minority of the Judiciary Committee
| referred to the acton of the Legislature of
| 1859 CO. in regard to the ordinance of
secession, as authority in support of the
power claimed for this General Assembly;
and why? Because it was mode used by
those who desired the overthrow of the gov
ernment to separate Tennessee In its po-
| litical relations from the government of the
United States
Next, | turn upon the Honorable Senator
his own guns The people ratified the
action of the Legislature by over 60, 900 ma
jority-and the people We know can do no
| wrong-who is afraid to trust the people?
Yet, the very people whom the Senator
| processes such yeneration in, ratified at the
baDot-box the ordinance, and for four
years maintained their conviction of its
validity al the point OF the bayOnet.
do not argue the expediency of its pas
| sage. With all my powers of mind, and
with imminent risk Of my life, 1 openly op-
posed its adoption, and voted against it.
He says it had no legal effect Was it not
ratified by the people? Was it not sus-
| tanned by the courts of the State And
for four years was it not maintained on the
battlefield ? What higher ratification could
| be asked He also expresses his regrets
| that the Minority should have referred to
| the action of the convention of 1865, and
| the comforting of power by it on the first
! Legislature that should assemble. Yet the
| regret expressed does not weaken the force
| of the reference The people did meet
| their action was submitted to vote it Was
| declared adopted, and by the schedule thus
| adopted, the qualifications of voters andthe
| limitation of the elective franchise may be
| determined by the General Assembly which
| shall first assemble under it ''-Amended
| Constitution.
Now, we did not Justify the act of the So
| called Convention. We did not say that it
was legal, but what we did say, was that
| by their action, the people claiming to be
| LOYAL imposed on the General Assembly the
| power thus to act as a convention even
| without requiring of them to submit their
action to the people for their approval.
The point was not the legality Of the
| people in convention assembled, but the
| point is, Was not the power imposed in the
| General Assembly? Did it not act was
not Its action, upon argument sustained by
the courts? was not the government they
organized recognized by the govenmentsof
| the United States? If so, is it not gov
eminent, irregular, but valid, yet? The
Senator argues it as illegal and void as the
proceedings of 1861; if so, how does he
| Justify our sitting here rs the General As
sembly of the State?
If l mistake not, the gentleman was an
eleetor on the ticket favoring the election
1 of Z. S. Grant to the Presidency, and cast
| the vote of Tennessee as a State for Gen.
Grant How and why? Has it not all the
attributes of State government an eI-
ecutive, legislative and Judicial depart
ment? Has it not exercised one of the
powers of State in the presidential cleo
| ton Of 1868?
] The r,nliticaI 1,n,, or of tia and of tina