The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1875-10-12
The Convention and Submission Of
the ConststutI0n for Ratification. q.


10 the people for ratification Mt an cleo
ton to he held for this purpose. lie
SAYS that the act Of the Legislature
for n call Of the Convention,
does not require this to he done. IN
this he is correct, and il he will exam
inc the journals of the House of Rep.
reseutatives at its last session, he will
find that whilst the bill was pending,
and under discussion, an amendment
was proposed requiring the Conslitu-
ton TO be submitted for ratification or
and that it was voted down.
From this action of the House., 1t might
be inferred that, in its opinion, IL was
not necessary to submit the Constitu-
ton. But this was not the reason CIV
en- for voting down the proposition.
It was because ii was considered that
il was question which the Conven-
ton should determine for itself And
doubtless this is true. The Convention
is the proper body to determine this
question. 1t has the right to make
and adopt Consttution-and its nc
ton in the premises will be as binding
as IA vote of the people could make IT,
The opinion has been general, and
such is public expectation, that the
Constitution will be submitted, and
there is no doubt, but that the COnven-
ton is disposed to do 50 and is proceed
ing to its work with this intention. 1t is
perhaps, unfortunate, that it is so. 1t
would be better If the Convention felt
that it was bound to frame and adopt II
Constitution for the State. 1t would
then realize, to fuller extent, its re-
sponsibility. But rs it is, many pro-
visions of doubtful propriety will be
inserted, and other good ones
omitted, in order to secure votes for its
ratification. And members will re-
lieve themselves of responsibility by
throwing it upon the people. Every
interest of the State, every grade Of ill.,
telligence is fairly represented in the
Convention, and there can be no doubt
but it IL a reflex Of the public sentiment
of the State; and from the advantages
il has of discussion, it is much more
competent to judge what is for the
public interest, than the masses of the
people themselves are. And really
no public good can be subserVed 10y
submitting the Constitution for ratili-
cation. Doubtless there would be
some dissatisfaction at the failure to
do so, but it will be impossible to make
u Constitution against which nothing
can be said. And if the Convention
would assume the whole responsibility,
we would likely get u more perfect in-
strument than otherwise, and the
merits of the instrument would be
the Justification of the members.
Those who approve the Constitution
will justify them, and those who disap-
prove, and who would vote against it,
will condemn. But public men ought
not to shirk the proper responsibility
but should take it when the public in
terest requires it No really great
statesmen have ever acted otherwise,
but this cannot be said of the pestiter-
Gus demagogue, who is always bawling
the people, the people-but renlly cares
for nothing but his own selfish nd
vancement.
The public is clamorous for the Con-
vention to conclude its work; this is
wrong, The Convention should be
deaf to such senseless clamor-it has
its origin, in u great measure, in igno-
rance, and n want Of u comprehension
of the magnitude, difficulty and impor-
lance of the work it is engaged in. 1t
should take Its time, and do its work
well-otherwise it had better
not undertaken it at all.
Your CORRESPONDENT uses the same ar
guments against submitting the Con-
stitution which We're urged against
submitting the question of Convention
or no Convention. He endeavors to
show that n combination of the Re.
publicans and oilice.holders, bankers
and railroads would defeat the adop-
| ton of the Constitution. There Is not
the slightest danger of this. The mum.
Der of votes that could be controlled by
bankers and railroads are too insig-
nilicant to require consideration, even
If they should feel inclined to try to
exert any. Why should either oppose
the Constitution? 1t Is said, the bank
ers will, because the Constitution will
have usury clause In 1t. But will
this hurt the banks? 1t Is supposed
that the effect of such clause will
make money cheap and abundant. II
50, SO much the better for the hanks,
for then their deposits would be
| larger and their ability To
loan eorrespondingly increased
and II this were true banks and bank
ers would have less reason to oppose
usUry than any one else. The chief
profits Of banking are not derived from
losping their own money, hut other
peoples and on exchange. And what
railroads are there TO exert any influ-
ence in the election +? Certainly the
Convention will not undertake to d.
vest those already In existence, of any
vested rights; II II does the courts will
declare IL action to be in violation ia
| the Constitution Of the United States
and therefore void II there Is any
hostile action in the Convention to.
wards railroads IL will only operate up,
on new companies TO be hereafter ere
ated, and be the means Of lettering
persons from engaging In new enter,
priscs, aud thus make the present COM
| panies, In fact, monopolies. But Tex
a. eau only be kept one and indivisi-
bic 10y true and comprehensive states
mansbip; a narrow contracted one
will hasten and insure division
The State il now held together by
a sentiment rather than q unity of In
terest. If the legislation of the last
session had been of "a character to have
secured the completion of the Interna.
tional railroad to the Rio Grande, the
east and west would have been bound
together I'm iron bands. But whilst il
settled the question involved, it did Il
in such u way as to cost the State i'm.
mense treasure, and yet not to secur,
the completion Of the road. a glori
Gus opportunity of settling forever the
division question was lost. And now
the chief objection urged against divis'
ion is the additional taxes which woult
have to be imposed to support two OF