Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1869-11-10

nit amendments to the people, once in
every six wears, and which must be ratified
by the action Of the succeeding Legislature
and then by the people--and that the
expression of this mode expressly excludes
all other modes-and therefore the sub
stitute cannot be sustained
How we took issue with this view of the
subject in our report, accompanying the
substitute" and we there said that themax-
i'm of ''erpressiO ultrus, erclsIsi0 GlteTias, +"
had no reference to constitutional law-or
the action of Legislative bodies clothed with
the power of proposing conventions or
amendments.
And we say now, that thus is a question
of authority-and refer Senators to the
various authorities cited and reviewed by
Jamison in his exhaustive work on consti-
tutional law, from section 5!l to 574, and
where he gives the result OF his examina-
ton in the following language: The
maxim erDreSsio uailss est erclnSi0 Gltelius
is not applicable to the provisions of con-
stitution. or the powers of Legislature
under the sovereignty conferred of calling
conventions and proposing amendments,
at other times and places and in other
forms from those designated in the consti-
tuition. quoting Barto u.s. Himrod, 4th
Selden, page 4S3.
And then 1 refer the Senate to the acts
of the Legislature of PENNSYLVANIA in 1889,
of Delaware in 1892, and Of Maryland in
1850 and of New York in 1915, when they
called conventions for legitimate constltu-
tional purposes, but irregularly, and pro-
posed amendments to the people in total
disregard of constitutional provisions pre-
scribing particular modes in which alone
amendments to the Constitution should be
made"
Yet, all of these several constitutions,
thus irregularly amended, were adopted by
the people and acquiesced in for years, and
until subsequently altered and amended.
Now, if l am wrong in my views, that a
convention can only originate with the
General Assembly, and the Senator from
McMinn is right when he assumes that the
only power which the General Assembly
has in relation to the amendment of the
Constitution is as prescribed in the 18th
article, section three, then l put the ques-
ton to Senators, under and by what
authority can the General Assembly enact
this Convention bill?
The question being is the passage of the
Convention bill, as proposed by the ma
jority of the Judiciary Committee, legal, or
is it revolutionary:
If, as argued by the Senator from Me-
MINI, it is revolutionary, without authority
under the Constitution, then, / ask, what
gives to the act when passed. or to the Con-
vention when assembled, vitality and effect
Ratification by the people through the bal
lot-box? Then, if ratification by the people
through the ballot-box gives validity and
legality to that which otherwise would be
revolutionary, why, ask, would it not give
effect to amendments proposed by 'eon-
stitutional convention" expressly clothed
with the power TO submit them, if they
are submitted, to the people, in a mode
different from the manner prescribed in the
Constitution.
insist, as argued by the Minority in
their report, that no reasonable objection
can be urged to the substitute proposed,
that does not apply in full force to the Con-
vention Bill, as advocated by the Senators
from Gibson and McMinn. Under their
arguments both are irregular. Under my
view the General Assembly has the Consti-
tutional power to submit the amendments
directly to the people, the only question
being the time, place and mode in which
they should be submitted. If the express
sion of one mode excludes all others, then
the General Assembly can legally propose
them, only in the manner provided by the
Constitution. Nor can the Legislature, if
that rule is of binding obligation, legally
pass the Convention Act, because the Con-
stitution nowhere gives us the power to
call convention.
Yet, as l have shown, the entire current
OF American authority establishes that
the General Assembly, by virtue of its in
herent power, can legally call convention
or rather give their consent that
convention may assemble, if the people
desire it-and If so desired-that is, the
whole commission and authority of its
delegates being the concurrent consent
of the established government that inau-
gI1rates the movement, and the people who
ratify it,
Now, if IT is the Legislative act which
originates the measure, and who now
denies it and its act, together with the APP
proval of the qualified voters at the ballot
box, gives commission and authority for
the delegates to act, whenever called, as
argued. in direct conflict with the mode
prescribed in the Constitution, then l ask
what prevents the same results being le-
gally attained, when the amendments,
originating with the Legislature, legally
are submitted to the people in the mode
different from that prescribed in the Con-
stitutiOn, and by the people, adopted at
I'll. Ia1ls.t