Wilmington journal., 1875-07-30
or they would if they could. Aud yet

DO! we are ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS uauu
and foot-of ourselves we can do
nothing. Is this state of things to be
continued {? Are the intelligent white
men of Eastern North Carolina to be
governed-are taxes to be levied upon
their property and labor, and to be
disbursed by body of illiterate ne
groes, not one in one thousand of
whom owns an acre of land ? Gan any
man, with the spirit of white man III
his bosom rest quietly under such a
state of thugs? Yet our weapons are
those of peace. We can only appeal
to our white brethren throughout the
State, to come to our aid. now when
they have the opportut ity, and if they
turn deaf ear to our entreaties, we
will bow our heads in sorrow and en-
deavor to submit patiently to the
Affections with which God may choose
to visit us.
L have trespassed SO long upon your
patience, that [ cannot treat at tne
length the importance of the subject
demands
THE CONVENTION ACT
and the restrictions therein contained.
It is well known to my friends, that
I have regarded, as l do now regard,
many of the restrictions imposed by
the act, not only as unnecessary, but
as inconsi stent with the best interest of
the State dictated by timid aud short
sighted policy, and especially unjust
to eastern North Carolina. But have
not hesitated to declare as a lawyer,
and do now declare, my opinion to
be, that they are of binding force. l
am very sure that no Convention COM
posed of majority of Conservatives,
would attempt to disregard them, but
should they do so, their work would be
null ahd void even were it sanctioned
by the people, and would be SO held
by the Supreme Court.
The precedent of 1865, when Judge
CASTOR declared, and the Convention
SO decided, that body to be bound b
the restrictions contained in the call
is said, by our opponents, to be OF no
value, because the said restrictions
were imposed by a vote of the Legis-
| lature, which has no power to bind the
people.
A very few words will show the ut
ter falacy of this reasoning.
Previous to 1885, the Constitution
contained no provision for it's own
amendment The Legislature had no
power to call a Convention, because
such power the people had reserved to
themselves, and had not delegated it
to that body. 1t follows then that,
previous to 1886, the people could only
call a Convention either restricted, or
unrestricted,
But by the Constitution Of 1895, amp
| by the present Constitution, the peO-
| pie parted with the power to call a
Convention and delegated such power
to two-thirds of the Legislative body.
The people then have no power to
call a Convention, except through
two-tnirds of the Legislature to whom
they have delegated it. And all pow
er which rested III the people in this
particular before 1885, now rests in
the Legislative body who have thus
the right to call Convention, Ell
ther open or limited in all respects
as the people had before that period.
It seems to me that this position is
impregnable. The sanction OF the peo
pie can give no force or validity to any
amendment of the Constitution. ex-
cept in the prescribed mode, To at
tempt to do so would be simply ''rev
olution.'
Such is the doctrines of the Su-
preme Court OF the United States in
the "Dorr case" and the same doc
trine is emphatically sustained and ap-
proved by Judge Ruffin. ''clarum ct
venerable nomen," IN his letter to a
member of the Convention of 1866. 1t
is also sustained by the high authority
of Mr.. Moore, to whom / have already
| referred.
Those who now hold different doc
trine and who insist that the restric-
tions are of no binding force, or
through ignorance, or are endeavOrlng
to deter the timid and mislead the un-
wary in the hope of defeating all
amendments to the Constitution.
You will know now somewh 1t i'm
portance to attach to the senseless cry
that the rights of married women are
in danger, and that the homestead also
may no longer be- provided for.
Whereas both of those measures are
for the benefit of property holders,
| who alone are Interested therein, and
besides we are indebted for both to the
white men Of North Carolina, and not
to the negroes and their associates.
AS long as 1S4S. Colonel Andrew
Joiner, the then distinguished Sena-
tor fir m this county, made the first
move in behalf of the rights of married
women.
He introduced and carried through
| married women y separate estate in
their land (Rev. Code chap. 26 sec. 1. }
| The act has remained on the statute
book ever since, and to this day a mar
ried woman has no greater estate in
| land than that Act secures to her, and
did secure 10 her nearly thirty years
before our bastard Constitution was
ever thought of.
| In 1850 the Act was passed allowing
a married woman to insure the life of
, her husband for her own use. In
1858 at Louisburg, in Franklin county,
if l may be allowed to refer to myself
when personal property was of great
value, 1 made speech upon invitation,
which was then published, and advo-
Gated from beginning to end, the sep
arate rights of married women
to their personal as we'll as real estate
1 was one of the first men in North
Carolina to take up the subject, and I
we'll recollect how the beautiful girls
of that section applauded me, nor
were the sentiments expressed less ap-
preciated by the more staid matrons
Nor does the claim of our opponents
to the
HOMESTEAD
rest on any better grounds. Judge
Reid in Garrett VS. Cheshire, decided
at June term, 1873. 50 N. @. Rep 396,
calls attention to the act of 1866 and
1867, ch. 81 p. 81. where a homestead
of 100 acres, including single dwell
ing and out houses is allowed, and
that, too, without regard to value, and
the same is continued after the death
of the father until the Youngest child
attains twenty-one years of age. The
same act is also most liberal in the ex-
emptions of personal property, and
this act was passed by Conservatives,
on the 9th day of February 1867, a
full year before negro could poll a
vote or the Radical party had a foot
hold in the State. For that party then
to claim the paternity OF those meas
ures, is false pretence which no man
of responsibility will set up.