The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1871-07-11
The Convention Question in No''n
Carolina.


The presen. Constitution Of Nof'" ,,o
lima provides that "No Convent'o" " ~,
..pcople flor the purpose OF arc ne,or.,
instrument shall be called o' WV
..Assemn,v ,,nlcss by the concurrence VI
f.,.otb;rds of all the members OIL each
.u,usn NJ rho General Assembly," The
Loot Ieg;s,ature passed by majority vote
an act making it the duty Of the Governor
RI take certain steps which were to be pre-
lfminary to Convention but he refused
TO obey the law, saying that he could not
conscicntiously do so. The Legislature
then passed by majority vote an act re-
curing the sberiffs of the several counties
to hold an election on certain ia! I'd
August (ueXt month) to ascertain the VIII
OF the peoplc--lirst, rs to The convention
itself. and, secondly, if they vote Tor Con-
yentiou. rs to who shall represent them in
that body. The leading opponents OF
the Convention, including many officials,
claim that, under the Constitution, the
latter act OF the Legislature Is nun ana
void, 1.-THE former was rendered imperative
by the refusal Of the Governor to take ac-
ton under il.) A warm contest is going on
In the State. The friends OF the ConVcn-
ton claim that the people have right TO
call i convention 1T will, and not only lold
that the Lcgi >lature acted Alright, out have
their candidates in the field. The oppo-
nent. Of the Convention also have candi-
dates in the field These claim that as the
LEGISLATURE had not the power to pass Such
an act. Convention held under its author-
ity would be revolutionary body, ana
might result i'll interference l" suppress IL
nv the General Government at " aShlngooh'
The question ut issue Is M interesting
nne. We have no doubt Of the right of the
voters of State to order Convention
whenever n majority Of them desire one.
AS one Legislature cannot bind succeed
ing one not to repeal its acts. so one Con-
yention cannot tie the hands OF succeed
ing Convention. 1t may he said that the
cases are not analogous in that each Legs
lature assemblies In pursuance OF consli-
tutional law. But, then, the theory OF Il
Convention is that it is the people them
selves in session and "tbe people" Oh
1870 cannot bind 1.-The people" of 1880
not to form new Constitution. Ii Il Con-
yention may provide that no new Conven-
tion shall be held unless tWO-thirds OF the
members Of the Legislature order one, II
may provide that none shall he held unless
nine. tenths Of the members OF the LeSisia-
ture ordcr it. Thus u Convention might
perpetuate Constitution indefinitely.
1t is said, however. by the opponents OF
the Convention that if the view above pre-
hp E'n1prNl
Constitution might be altered by Il majority
of the people of the United states when
ever they should think proper to do so.
This argument would have some weight
with a consolidationist, but not with us.
The Federal Constitution is rather III the
nature Of Il treaty between the several
States of the Union than constitution
such as each separate State has. The Legls.
lature of State may do anything not ljro'd-
den by its or The Federal Constitution. Con-
gress can 90 nothing except what IL Is eH-
presslv authorized hy the Federal Const.tu-
tionto do. This is tic true docli inc Us to the
bowers of the Stale Legislatures aud the
powers of Congress, though we know tnat
the Radicals have converted Congress into
great national Legislature, having power
to do whatever it p!eaSes. The fact is that
the people of the United States acting to-
gether as body have no right to alter the |
Federal Constitution in any manner, nor |
even to touch it. And this fact OF Itself
ought to silence those persons who hold that
the Federal Government bears the same re- |
lation to the States that the states do to their
counties. 1t is admitted by all parties that |
the Federal Constitution cannot be changed |
by majority of the people OF the whole
country voting together. 1t is also adj
mtted that the people of the several coun-
ties of each State have 4 right to vote,
and do vote in this very way when they
wish to change their State Constitutions.
1t is evident, then, that the argument we
are combating is fallaciollS, and that it does
not follow that the Federal Constitution
may 6c changed by a vote Of the majority
OF the whole people, because State Con-
stitution may be altered by the vote of q
majority of the people of the state.
But let Gen. GRANT decide this question
rs he may, we trust the people of North
Carolina will order Convention. Let Us |
see If he will dare to keep his minions in
Office in defiance of the will Of the people |
OF that State. If the Federal Government |
has such powers, the sooner all the States |
learn the fact the better for them. II 1t has |
not such powers, North Carolina may be |
instrumental in destroying the Radical
party !; tor if anything in the world could |
open the eyes of the northern people, and
enable them to see the condition in which |
they as we'll as we are, it would be an at |
tempt on the part Of Gen. GRANT to pre-
vent the people of a State from forming u
new Constitution. The question cannot be
decided too soon.