Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1872-01-18

= dlfludl ul6SSdSeS, recommended Il0
calling of a convention-the outgoing
lone, Governor Worthington, grand
: father OF our efellow-citizen, Rufus
King,l and Governor Brown. the new
incumbent, a citizen of fCinCinuati, (but
who had not the good fortune to be
} anybody's grandfather, so far as we
} bachelor.) But i aIn again depressing,
n tempted by wayside gossip, which has
irresistible attractions for those who
! write or talkaof what they remember OF
, past generation ~ 'sIss'5 tc @sse -
l.; Bates first article does not dispute
n that the Constitution may need amend
q ments in some particulars. He says:
"Suppose we take that for granted;
J what then? Shall we hazard rights
4 and privileges of the most important
\ nature to remedy this defect? Throw
Z all open to the decision of delegates OF
4 whose real views and sentiments we
;. are totally ignorant, and run the risk
of a system which we had not anticipa-
ted and could not approve? A eau
tious and wise policy, / apprehend,
4 would not dictate, such measure ati
Again he says: "But we are told
4 thatia Convention must of necessity
i be unlimited, and when once organi-
zed they hold the sole po ger of decid-
ling as towhat subject they will direct
their attention. .7s l5 $500 aH
r. He proceeds to argue against this po-
Isition, and to point out why, and now,
a Convention, If called, should be linn
tied In its powers by the people; and
adds: s<os71' -ss5 els- rei 3Ea
eff, then, a Convention possesses a
certain portion of the sovereignty of
the people, and thatpOrtion be coufid-
4 ed to them for special purpose, why
! not give them exactly the powers we
wish them to exercise and no more?
On these principle a Convention might
be called without danger, when defects
| in our system of government became
Eobvious,n q > afit igdF Ejau-'
Hammond says, in reply: '
r SIT ought to. be known to the editor
i.ofthe Philanthropist that the ground
which he assumes is not warranted by
| the Constitution. Before we can have
la limited Convention the Constitution
must be altered so as to authorize a
Limitation. The Legislature has no
authority to impose restriction 9what-
ever pom the powers of a Convention;
and the people themselves can only re-
strict such body by refusing to Estify
their acts; and this power will always
remain with the body Of the people,
unless they vote it into other hands.
No danger can reasonably be appre-
hended from submitting the whole
Constitution to the revision of a Con-
vention. Certainly we can find dele
gates who are worthy of confidence,
aud it is not likely that the people at
large will lratify by their votes any pro-
vision which they do not approve. 1t
might no be observed, however, In Or
der to. mitigate the dread of those who
are not well informed on the subject,
that Slavery and Monarchy are both of |
them prohibited to the people of this |
State, and equally impossible to any
Convention that may be called, accord
ing to compact made long before our |
Constitution: Accord ngly. a man of |
sense would be ashamed to urge the
fear of Slavery or Monarchy as an argu-
ment against revising our Constitu-
tion.1 As1l lSegl''zs4' $40 eadI
Z Bates, in replying, says: sN55g. gal |
: ssThe question before the public is
not who can write tho most sarcastical
ly, or treat. an opponent with the most
supercilious contempt. 1t relates to
the manner of guarding and preserving
the Instrument under which we hold /
our most essential privileges; and there
can not possibly be a reason why, in
commun .icating our ideas to the pub
lie, and especially on subjects Of this
nature, we. should deviate from the
rules Of decorpm and common civili-
ty.'1' ~ -. i''-.', ,..7.. - -, - ...
He then proceeds to argue at some
length against the, position of Ham
mond-that a Convention with restrict
ed powers was impossible under the
existing Constitution, The introduce
ton of slavery is touched upon. Ham
mond had, declared that to be impo ;si-
BILE, being prohibited by a contract old
er than the Constitution. Bates con-
tends that the compact spoken of (the
ordinance for the Government of the
Territory } is denied by I,
some to be any contract at all; and that
while that remains matter OF opinion,
it is best, in view of the agitation then
about the admission of Mis-
souri,, not to throw the question open
into the hands .ofa Convention COM
posed of men whose views on that sub
ject. were unknown. He adds that
even already, in the discussion OF the /
question in Congress, MEM
/
that celebrated ordinance could not and
ought not to prevent any State from !
their constitution according
to their own pleasure, and admitting !
slavery il, they pleased. ,.s5-,.es
A good deal of verbal criticism ap-
pears on both sides about the. meaning |
of the phrases to revise, to amend, and
to change, found in the old Constitu-
tion: Hammond appearing to regard
them as practically meaning the same
either of those things might be done {
without doing the other. Hammond {
had spoken of Bates as an emigrant, |
'swfio appeared to feel no indecorum
In settling down among US, mere {
stranger, and insinuating that Govern {
Drs Worthington and Brown and two
thirds of the General Assembly are Z
brooding projects hostile to the rights s
Of the people.n ''Emigrant" was an s
nnlucky word for Mr.. Hammond {
And the reply puts one in mind of 1
Pitts answer to Walpole, when j
Charged with the atrociotis crime of |
being young man." Not that it was |
by fierce invective, for it
was expressed with all Inildness of the
peaceful Quaker; bat 1t was, neverthe-
less a crusher, which, it is well known,
Hammond long remembered, and can ,
didly acknowledged. ~ 49,
Bates said:
"The aversion which he manifests to {
semigrants' is remarkable, and excites
some curiosity. The population on '
this side the river is com oosed of three {
classes; Aborigines, enigrants, and az
race that has sprung up in the last if
teen or eighteen years. 1t would be
gratifying If he would only let US !
know which Of these classes he belongs
to- From his manner of conveying his j