The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1873-05-08

any Senator on this floor But regarding
this as one Of the most important. questions
that has or viii COME before this LeQisln-
ture, desire 20 briefly submit some Of the
reasons which control my vote on the pend
! ing question That our present Constitu-
ton IS ambiguous and contradictory in
many Of It's provisions, and that much Of II
IS 50 Objectionable that we can never have
Satisfactory legislation under il. is a fact
conceded By all. Even the adverse report.
made by a portion Of the Committee on
Constitutional Amendments against the
passage Of this joint resolution. admits the
proposition that the present Constitution is
Objectionable and ought to be amended
The question about which we differ is how
shall the Constitution be amended Those
who oppose the calling Of q Constitutional
Convention insist that the only legitimate
mode of amending the Constitution IS the
mode prescribed IN the instrument itself.
and which viii be found in section so, Of
article IL, being the last section in the Con-
stitution. This section provides that
the Legislature may by a two-thirds
vote, submit amendments to the COnstitu-
ton to the people for adoption or rejection:
and if adopted by majority vote Of those
voting, the succeeding Legislature is thereby
/
| the same as q part of the Constitution
Now, sir, l respectfully submit that this
mode of amending the constitution, will
not and cannot be satisfactory. BY the
terms of this section, each separate amend
ment of each separate section Of the Consti-
tuition proposed to be amended must be sub
mitted to the people separately. And there
are so many sections in the Constitution
that require amendment. and such multi
tude of propositions would have to be sub
mitted to the people for adoption or reiec-
ton. that the whole thing would result in
interminable confusion, and no satisfactory
result would ever be arrived at Our expe-
rience in taking the vote of the people,
upon the constitutional amendment, which
we have already adopted and ratified, ought
to satisfy US of the utter impracticability of
ever amending the Constitution satisfactor-
lily, in the mode prescribed by itself how
then are we to rid ourselves Of this obnox-
iOus Constitution / confess know of no
Legitimate and satisfactory way to do so, ex-
cept TO call a Constitutional Convention.
But we are told that the Legislature has no
power to call a convention. Well, do not
propose to discuss that question, further
than this, that the Legislature certainly has
the power to pass either joint or concur
rent resolution, TO take the sense of the peo-
pie upon any proposition touching the
Organic law, or affecting the State Govern
ment.
According TO our theory of government,
sovereignty resides in the people, and all
good government exists by the consent OF
the governed. Whatever then the people
accept, agree on endorse, or ratify, by ma
jority vote of the qualified electors, is the
will of the people clearly expressed, regard
less of the mode by which that expression
may be obtained, and becomes the law of
the land, organic or otherwise, according to
the proposition submitted.
Now, sir, what does the pending resolu-
ton proposed
1t proposes that an election shall be
held in the month of August next, at
which the first proposition submitted to ne
people of the State shall be: Constitutional
Convention or no Constitutional Conven-
ton, but at the same election sixty delegates
shall be elected to a Constitutional Conven-
ton, which shall assemble in October next
to make a new Constitution, in the event
that majority of the people vote in favor
of holding such a Convention. And If
majority Of the people vote to call such
! Convention, and that Convention shall
make new Constitution, and that Con-
stitution be submitted to the people,
and ratified by a majority vote, it shall
become to all intents and purposes the Con-
stitution of the State. These are the prop
ositions contained in the pending resolu-
ton. It simply proposes to take the
sense Of the sovereign people on the Gues-
ton, and to have their will legitimately and
fairly expressed, rs the organic law of the
State. To these fair and Just propositions
there certainly can be no objection in the
mind of any person who can take either a
legal or logical view of the question. But
l imagine that none Of the opponents of
this resolution will deny the proposition,
that Constitution ratified by a majority
vote of the qualified voters of this State
would, to all intents and purposes be the
Constitution Of the State, regardless of the
mode by which that Constitution might
have been framed What then are the OBJ
jections to the pending resolutionl 1t is
admitted that the Constitution is obiec-
tionable, and that it should be amended.
And it will not be denied that Constitu-
ton, no matter how made, if ratified by the
people, would be the Constitution Of the
State. Yet we are told that it is inexpe-
dent and even dangerous to attempt to
call constitutional Convention at this
time. Why SOP Is it wrong or dangerous
III Ant people 10 tAEtGlSC their lndlClHUlG
sovereign nghts2 Or is it improper for as
to attend to our own business? Certainly
these Just propositions will not be denied.
But we are told that our action might be
construed as revolutionary, if we attempt
to call a convention. What Reyolu-
tionary for q people to exercise their nat
ural right to govern themselves9 No, sir;
have too much respect for the U. s. gov
ernment, and too much confidence in its
future action, to believe for a moment, that
1t will Interfere in any way with the people
OF Texas, in the exercise of their sovereign
rights, If they see proper to call Conven-
ton to amend their present obnoxious Con-
stitutioa.
But my attention is called to the first sec
ton Of the Constitution, which reads as fol-
lows, viz: Section l. ssThe Constitution
Of the United States and the laws and trea-
ties made and to be made in pursuance
thereof, are acknowledged to be the SUI
preme law: that this Constitution is framed
in harmony with, and in subordination
thereto; and that the fundamental princi-
pies embodied herein can only be changed
subject to the national authority About
the construction Of the first two clauses Of
this section there can be no difference Of
opinion. We all concede that the prcpo-
sitions therein contained are true and cor
rect. But in the construction Of the last
clause there is some difference Of opinion;
some persons holding that the words ma
tional authority refer to the Congress Of
the United States, and that our State Con
stitutiOn cannot be amended without the
consent Of Congress. This construction is
clearly untenable. The Congress Is no
more the .lational authority than the
executive and Judicial branches Of the gov
eminent. The section Of the Constitution
referred to is a single sentence, consisting
Of three clauses, and must be construed as a
whole, and consi6Crrf in connection. And
when so considered national authority
cannot be made to refer to anything other
than the Constitution, laws and treaties Of
the United States, as expressed in the first