Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1869-10-29
THE coNvENrroN.

The House of Representatives. was &c
cupied yesterday in the discussion of The
proposition to amend the Convention Bill
so as to allow the DISTINGUISHED the right
to vote for delegates. We confess our
surprise that any one can at this day deny
the right of the people, thewhole people,
theenfranchised and DISTINGUISHED, tomeet
in convention, or TO meet TO choose dele
gates to represent them in convention
Mr.. Jameson in his work onC Constitutional
Conventions, says ''Of the American
system of government the two leading
principles are, first, that laws and constitu-
tons can be rightfully formed and estab-
Hshed only by the people over whom they
are to be put in force and secondly, that
the people, being a corporate unit, CON-
prising all the citizens Of the State, and
therefore, too unwieldy to do this import
ant work directly, agents or representa-
tives must be employed 10 do it, and that
in such numbers so selected, and charged
respectively with such functions as to
make it reasonably certain that the will of
the people viii be not only adequately,
but speedily executed
The Declaration of Rights does not
confer any rights on the people 1t merely
declares what are the rights of the people.
For instance, the statement in section 8
of our Declaration of Rights that sail
men have a natural and indefeasible right
to worship Almighty God according to the
| dictates of their own conscience" does
not confer that right upon all men or any
man. 1t merely declares a natural and in
defeasible right which all men have. So
section l of the Declaration of Rights
does not confer any power on the people.
1t simply declares what already exists, in
dependent of Constitutions, Conventions
and Declarations of Rights, TO wit,
All power is inherent in the people, and
all free governments are founded on their
authority and instituted for their peace,
safety and happiness; for the advancement
Of these ends, the people have, at all times,
an nalienabe and indefeasible right tC
alter, reform or abolish the government il
such manner as they may think proper.
But we are met with the argument fist
that the people are only those who have
the elective franchise And secondly,
that the elective franchise is fixed by Oul
present Constitution and that this Legisla
ture has no power TO confer it on any
except those specified in the present Con
stitutiOn
In reply, we have to say that strictly
speaking, the Legislature does not call thu
Convention, and has no more power to d
so than the same number of respectabl,
gentlemen in any portion of the State. /
is the popular demand which requires thi
Convention, and for the purpose of secUr
ing order, harmony and unity of actor
the Legislature suggests a day for the PEG
pie TO meet and choose representatives
and a day upon which the dele
gates shall convene. This NIGH
be done by resolution as well u.
by bin. When the Legislature seeks {,
confine the right to vote for delegates {,
the present enfranchised population, i
seems to assume the right of calling tht
Convention and saying who shall and who
shall not have a voice in that body. L
thus becomes a creation of the Legislator,
rather than a convention Of the people
II the whole people were to meet in con
vention, no one would deny the right Of
the disfranchised to a voice in that as
sGmhhge. If they would have a voice il
such general meeting, would they no
have a voice in selecting delegates to rep
resent that general meeting in a conven
ton?
Admit for the sake Of the argumen
that the present franchise law is par
of the Constitution. The people may il
convention delegate the elective franchis
TO few or many. Suppose they delegat
it to a few In all elections under thi
Constitution only these few viii have
right TO vote So, admitting the presen
franchise law to be part Of our presen
Constitution only those who are clector
under that Constitution can vote in an
election under it. But is the election fo
delegates to the Convention an election un
der the Constitution. It is an exercise O
authority Independent Of and above th
Constitution, just as the original forma
ton Of the Constitution was Again, ca
it be reasonably insisted that the peopl
would in convention delegate th
elective franchise to limited mum
Der with the understanding tina
only that limited number was here
after to have voice in choosing delegate
to a convention 'to alter, reform or abol
ish the government ~ No. But as W
have before stated, they might very prop
erly limit this franchise to limited nun
Der in all elections under the Constitution
When, however, they came ''to alter, re
form or abolish the government the
= would insist that the delegation o
F authority which they had heretofore mad
to a few did not extend to their case
They would insist that now the pcopl
will attest their inalenablc and indcfeasi
f hlc rights.
We are aware that it is held by som
that those who possess the elective fran
elise are "the people" to whom refer
, cncc is made in the Declaration of Rights
That theory viii not do for this latitude
Let us see how it would apply in Tennes
see Arenot Robert l.. Caruthers, Georg
W Jones, Neil s. Brown and others OF
the disfranchised, part of the people
Have they not the same rights, Interest,"
and powers in the matter of the Conven
% ton as the enfranchised. If not, thel
your convention is a convention of the en-
franchised and not of the people Sup
pose that in the formation of the first con
e. stitution of the State all the people o
the State had met in convention and or
daincd that only certain classes should b.
3 permitted to vote Could that con
s,itution only he changed by del
cgates elected by the enfranchised
p What becomes of the rights, power an,