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

: twenty-seventh day of November, n the
s in the year of our Lord, one thousand and
e eight hundred and thirty-three, entitled,
G San act to provide for the calling of a
+ Convention, " didauthorize and provide for
the election by the people of delegates and
r representatives, 10 meet at Nashville, in
2 Davidson county, on the third Monday
2 in May, in the year of our Lord, one
) thousand eight hundred and thirty-four,
: for the purpose of revising and amending
or changing the Constitution; and,
Whereas, The General Assembly of
said State of Tennessee, under, and in
virtue of the first section of the first arti-
Gle of the Declaration of Rights, contained
in and forming q part of the existing
Constitution of the State, by an act passed
on the 18th day of Nov, in the year of
our Lord, one thousand eight hundred
and sixty-nine, entitled, can act to au-
thorize the people to call a Convention,
and for other purposes" did authorize
the people of the State to cdll COnven-
ton, to meet at Nashville, on the second
Monday in January, in the year of our
Lord, one thousand eight hundred and
seventy, and to elect delegates thereto, for
the purpose of amending, revising, or form
ing and making new Constitution; and,
Whereas, The people of the State, in
pursuance of, and in the mode authorized
by said Act, have called said Convention,
and elected delegates to represent them
therein; now, therefore,
| We, the Delegates and Representatives
of the people of the State of Tennessee,
duly elected and in Convention assembled,
in pursuance of said act of Assembly,
have ordained and established the follow
ing Constitution and form of government
for this State, which we recommend to the
| people of Tennessee for their ratification:
That is to say
Mr.. Brown, of Davidson-In the I'd
line Of the preamble it occurs to me that
either the word estate" or the word
"member'' ought to be stricken out.
| Mr.. Baxter-The words there are as in
the original Constitution, but the style
might be improved as suggested by the
gentleman from Davidson.
| Mr. Garner-It is the same as in the
existing Constitution of 1884, as well as
in the constitution of SO. I ask the gen
tleman from Davidson, (Mr Brown
to withdraw his motion and let it stand as
in the original
Mr.. Brown, Of DavidsOn-I withdraw
my motion, but not my opinion.
Mr.. Gibson-I think that in the forma-
ton of the Bill of Rights there is no ne
cessity of going back into all history. For
if we are going to keep up these where
| asses, there is no telling where it will end.
| To test the sense of the Convention on
this, propose to strike out the entire pre-
| amble and substitute the following words:
''We, the people of the State of Tennes-
see, in order to organize liberty, secure
justice and protect ourselves, do ordain
and establish this Constitution for our
government"
l can see no use of retaining this pre-
amble Occupying three or four pages),
and going so particularly over the history
of the State
Mr. Porter, of Henry am in favor
of the proposition of the gentleman from
Anderson and Campbell Mr.. Gibson, |
although the preamble reported is in the |
language of the first and second cOnstitu- |
tons. There are many words contained in |
them that do not now have any particular |
significance. The late Constitution declares |
that the Convention of '34 was assembled |
by authority of the General Assembly. |
Now where did the General Assembly |
get the power expressed in the language |
used by them for calling a couventiOnl l |
hold, sir, that we are not here now by |
the authority of the General Assembly; |
and will not vote for a preamble that we /
are here by virtue of such authority. /
The first trainers of the Constitution |
never believed that they were establish
ing precedent by the use of these words, |
by which certain modern theorists would |
like to control constitutional conventions
of the people by the Legislatures.
Mr. Garner-I have looked carefully |
into the language of the report, and
l like it. l think it is plain and just
suited to the actual surroundings; and l
hope the Convention will adopt it. l find /
that we have had but two Constitutional |
Conventions before this. The one |
first called was June1 /, 1896, at Knoxville.
There they recite these words: ''We, |
the people of the territory south of the |
Ohio river, having the right of admission /
into the General Government as 4 member |
State thereof, consistent with the COnsti- |
| tuition of the United States, and the act /
of cessiOn of the State of North Carolina |
recognizing the ordinance for the govern |
ment of the territory of the United States |
northwest of the Ohio river" etc. The
Constitutional Convention of 1884 rccites |
the act of the General Assembly under |
which that Convention was convened at |
Nashville, and call the attention of the |
gentlemen from Henry Mr.. Porter to these |
| words: ''Thc said act did authorize |
| and provide for the election of delegates |
| and representatives, to meeta Nashville,
etc, 'for the purpose of revising and |
amending or changing the Constitution.
Certainly here is recited all that is neCes-
sary from the facts, and no more than is |
| necessary. 1t occurs to me that his pro- |
position is eminently proper; that we
should run back and connect ourselves |
with the Constitution of 1884, and the |
| original Constitution of '96. | do not
understand that this language implies that
| the Legislatures have the right to call |
Convention These are merely formal |
and enabling acts. This doctrine is settled
| by the first section of the Bill of Rights, |
which recites the fact that all power is |
| Inherent in the people. The people will |
have to revise our acts; and the COnstitu- |
ton which this body shall propose can |
have no binding effect until it shall be |
ratified by the people.
l think this preamble is well conceived, |
and by way of testing the sense Of the
| Convention upon it, | move TO lay the |
| amendment on the table.
Mr.. Thompson, of Davidson expect |
| to vote against the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Campbell and Ander
son Mr.. Gibson but l think the gentle
man from Henry Mr.. Porter has pointed
| out vital objection to the preamble re-
| ferred from the Committee on the Bill of
| Rights-that it recognizes the authority of
the Legislature to call this Convention. /
remember that when that act was passed
calling this Convention it caused consider
able excitement. Sir, the Legislature did
not call this Convention. 1t did not
authorize the people to call it. 1t merely
referred to the fact, or ought TO have re-
ferred to the fact, that it was by the in
structiOns of the people that
they should take the first steps
TO call a Constitutional Convention. In
the eye of the law this is the plane upon
which we stand here; and, sir, am I'M
willing that this modern heresy, as | con-
ceive it to be, should go into our pream-
bic. l do not understand that the Legis-
lature of 1888 asserted such a right but
we know that it is asserted by the Legis-
lature of 1869, and not only asserted but
claimed IN argument. This is what is as