Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1870-12-30

record bis vote IN the affirmative ppon tL
bill, aud felt sure the people whom he had
the honor to represent in part would moss
heartily endorse his action by rolling nm
an overwhelming majority for Conven.
tion on the day designated for the election.
Mr.. Troy said as to the constitutionality
of the question, he was fully satisfied ~
to the expediency. He thought our situa-
ton demanded O Convention. Represen-
ting. as he did, large colored constitu
ency, If he had the most remote idea that
the Convention would interfere with q
adrIdge any of their rights, he would vote
against the bill, but he had no such ap-
prehensions, and believing the interests OF
the cOlored race are identified with these
of the white race in the prosperity OF
North Carolina, he should vote in the af-
frmative on the BILL
Mr.. Normcnt said though Tho bin did
not accord entirely with bis views, lie
would support it, and related q story of q
very unfortunate man who got in q very
bad box. We regret that wo havo not the
space to relate it here.
Mr. Waddell said he felt that he was
about to vote for tho most important
measure that had been presented for the
cor sideration Of tho Senate; he should
support the measure cheerfullY because he
believed 1t would meet tho approba ti0n OF
his constituents.
Mr.. Battle said the bill did not accord
with his views In several particulars, vet
he saw the necessity of a Convention, and
should support If.
Mr.. Albright said that he saw very
plainly now. that 10 man should make
pledges Ill advance TO his constituents; he
vas pledged to 60 against % Convention.
bnt since be had been here and heard the
views of Senators from different portions
Of the Str.to "a to the feelings OF their
constituents, and the able arguments IN
favor Of Convention, he was at II loss TO
know what to do. He desired to do what
was right and bes' for his people, and as
this bill only proposed TO submit the ques-
ton OF calling a Convention to the people
and let them decide it for themselyes-let
them Say whether they would have it or
not-ho felt that 10 could not vote 10 de-
prive his constituents of the privilege Of
voting on this question. Under these cir
cumstances he felt that he would be doing
right in voting for the bill.
The ballot was taken aud resulted as fol-
lows:
YEs-Messrs. Adams, Albright. Battle,
Cook, Council, Crowell, Dargan, Fleming,
Gilmer, Graham, Jones, Ledbetter. Lin.
ney, Love, Mauney, MoClammy, Merri-
mon, Murphy, Norment, Robbins of Da.
wilson, Robbins of Rowan, Skinner,
Speed, Troy, Waddell, Warren, White
sides and Worth-20.
,NAYs-Messrs. Barnett, Beasley, Bella
my, Brogden, Cowles, Currie, Eppes, col,
Flythe, Hymen, COL, King, Lehman, Nc
Cotter, Moore. MOrehead and Price, col,
-15.
The President (Ir. Warren in the chair
said that he entertained no doubt upon
the constitutional question which had been
submitted TO the Senate He adopted, as
among the reasons which led him TO the
conclusion that it was competent for the
General Assembly, by simple majority,
to pass the bill under consideration. The
following remarks were made by Gov. Ora
ham in the Senate Of North Carolina. in
1854. to wit:
but I am told that it is now prohibited
by clause In the amendments OF 1886. in
these words: No Convention OF the PEG
pie shall be called by the General Assem-
bly, unless by the concurrence of two
thirds OF all the members of each House
of the General Assembly - Let Ms exam
inc it. IL is prohibitiOn-upO1a whom
The General Assembly, unless two-thlrd.
concur. Against doing what Calling
Convention, Exercising their authcrita-
tive power to bring into existence, body
with power over the. Constitution. Tor il
is manifestIy intended that if maiorities OF
two-thirds do concur, they may direct q
Convention to be elected and assembled,
with full power to annul the whole Con
stitutiOn and substitute another in its
stead, without consulting the people at
first, or submitting it to them at least.
The Legislature evidently has no power to
limit Convention or to require it to sub
nit its work to the people. Against a
Convention, with such powers and such
responsibility, this provision was intend
ed to guard. But upon that safe and tried
Of Nv l,a
to the people, and call by the people
themselves, it has no operation. Restrain
ing and disabling provisions upon the
power of the people are to be strictly con
strued. They had the right to call a Con
vcntion, and the Legislature had the pow
er to provide them the means for the exer-
else of that right in 1885, as we have seen.
Does a prohibition on the Legislature
against calling G. Convention itself take
away either this right of the people or the
power of the Legislature to provide for it's
exercise
L am corroborated in this view by what
occurred in the Convention. First, COM
mittee reported mode for amending the
Constitution by what is called the legisla-
tive method. Taking it for granted that
that did not exclude the power to resort to
Conventions as another means of amend
ing. MIR. Meares, of Sampson, proposed
an article " so that no Convention of the
people should hereafter be called, except
by the concurrent vote Of twothirds OF
each House of the General Assembly,
Deb. con. 800. Did this pass ? If it had,
L should have surrendered the question:
But Mr.. Giles. of Rowan, aud others re-
monstrated and after debate. AIr.
Meares modified his amendment 50 as
to provide that no convention shall here
after be called by the General Assembly ex-
oept by tho concurrent vote of two thirds
of each House. Mr.. Giles said he IVES
perfectly satisfied. and the amendment III
that shape was adopted. Deb. Con. 372,
81 Now, what was the difference The
first proposition was general, and prevent
ed the call of a convention in any way ex-
cept by the concurrence Of two thirds Of
each House, and was taItamount to say
ing no convention shall be called, either by
the people nor By tie General assembly except
with the previous concurrence of two
thirds of each House Of the General Assem-