Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1870-01-18

| convention. AS L remarked before i
recognize that power as residing inherent
in the people. 1t is one of those inalien-
able rights of the people that has never
been surrendered. 1t is in the first sec
ton of the Bill of Rights, and the Com
mittee has made no change in that sec
ton. They recommend that the sec
ton continue as in the Constitu-
ton of 1884: "That all power
is inherent in the people," etc.
Now, here we propose to violate the De-
claration. 1t is not q derived power
Neither is it derived from the Legislature.
1t is derived from God; not from human
authority. Nor is it right to recognize this
power in the Legislature-to recognize a
principle which is wholly unfounded and
irreconcilable with this great fundamen-
tai principle of the Bill of Rights
this is an inherent, an inalienable and God
given right
Mr.. Baxter-I do not see the force of
the argument by which gentlemen would
support this proposition. The people have
an organized government; and while the
people have the right to reform that or
ganization, they cannot proceed to do
many things without the Intervention of
the authority of the Legislature.
Does the gentleman assume that the
people, without the authority that the
Constitution recognizes, can meet together
and amend their Constitution at pleasure
The people have no power except to
speak through their constitutional agents.
The Legislature passes a law for an cleo
ton for Convention Delegates; they make
provisions for holding that election; they
appoint the time of the Convention; they
make provision for the expenses of
this Convention. The people have the
right to act, but they have the right
to act through constitutional channels.
If the Legislature does not act con-
formally with the will of the peo-
pie, the people apply the remedy at the
next election. II seem to me that gentlemen
might just as well assume that no act of
the General Assembly is valid unless it
be specifically authorized and ratified by
the people; but the people elect represen-
tatives to act for them, and the peoples
representatives provided for this Conven-
ton. 1t is the authority from the people
oS1Iho tAuOuoh luC ICSLoAdtulCs
Mr.. Gordon had not objected TO the
law prescribing the mode and manner of
calling this Constitutional Convention.
But the objection was to this The
power comes rightfully from the people,
or does the power come in part
or in whole from the Legislature
l insist that it is inherent, natural and re-
siding in the people-derived by them
from the Almighty, and in no sense from
the Legislature. That is the question that
| propose to raise here-that is the ques-
ton that | propose to settle by the amend
ment have offered. l insist that this is
a natural and indefeasible right reserved
to the people in the formation of this
government. /
Mr.. Thompson, of Davidson, proposed
to amend by striking out the word "author-
ize" in the nineteenth line Immediately
after the word ''did," and insert these
words, ''obtained the express will of the
people and provide mode for" l think
that will meet the views of gentlemen.
Mr.. Stephens do not concur exactly
in the language of the amendment last
read. 1t declares that preliminary to the
act of the General Assembly of 1869, the
will of the people was expressed. 1t is
not proper to say that the will of the peo-
pie is expressed until it is rendered. do
not concur with gentlemen who seem to |
the notion, that the people, by
any spasmodic effort they may choose to
make, have a right to throw off govern
ment. That is right that they can avail
e
ry cases. ] think that while all power is
in the people, it is not expedient to declare |
that it should be exercised in any spas
mOdic manner, but only through the consti-
tuted organs of the people. The Legislature |
can provide for the calling of aCOnvention
as they did in 1884, and as provided in
the amendment that | want to offer. 1t |
is to strike out in the nineteenth line all |
after the word sixty-nine and insert ''did /
provide for the calling of Convention
to meet at Nashville on the second Mon
day in January, 1870, for the purpose of
revising or forming and max
ing a new Constitution" And then l
proceed and say, "and, whereas, they
18th day of December, 1869" That ex-
presses my idea of the powers of the peo-
pie and the Legislature.
Mr.. Thompson, of Davidson-That
would avoid any apparent approval of
the language of the report, which asserts
the authority of the Legislature of 1859
to call a Convention. But now if /
the gentlemen viii put in these
words appropriately: In obedience
to the expressed will of the people,"
the sense will be clear When we de-
clare the right of revolution it certainly |
does not cover the ordinary right TO amend |
the Constitution in legal way. Ger |
tainly it would be impairment in the Leg |
islature TO call Constitutional Conven-
ton without knowing at the time that |
such was the will of the people. That |
amendment does not conflict with any Or
ganized, well-working form of govern |
ment. This Convention may change the |
entire form of government, it being in
hibited only by the general Constitution |
from changingit from therepublican form. |
| not only want to ignore but l want to |
deny this right of the Legislature to au-
thOrize a Convention.
Mr.. Campbell-It strikes me that the |
legal effect of these two amendments now
pending are about the same. The amend |
ment | introduced was that the Legisla- |
ture were invited by the people TO call q
Convention, and the other is that the |
people did call the Convention by ma
jority of about forty thousand votes,
and at the same time they elected delegates |
to represent them in the Convention to |
alter or change the Constitution.
| think the two propositions are almost |
their legal effect is pre-
cisely the same. The reason prefer that |
of the gentleman from Weakley, is that it |
better states the facts.
Mr. Brown, of Davidson do not |
attach so much importance to these dis
tinctions as do some gentlemen, for the |
whole is nailed down completely in the |
first section of the Bill of Rights. There
is no escape from the proposition that all |
power is inherent in the people. There is
nothing in the preamble either as recon- |
mended by the committee, or as the report |
is proposed to be amended. The certain,
well considered phraseolOgy of the first
section is enough. Still | have no |
objection to the amendment Of |
fered by the gentleman from
Weal1ley Mr.. Gardner, except that it
to strike out the title of the act
referred to- Now the title of the act is
only an historical matter, and if we refer
to it at all, we ought to use the title that
the Legislature gives to it. 1t is the usual
style of reference when we refer back TO
an act of the Legislature. would allow
the title to stand as the Legislature made