The weekly Union times. [volume] (Union C.H., South Carolina) 1871-1894, 1890-08-22
The Address Of the Retiring Delegates.

Tho Address ofthe Retiring Delegates.
The address of the retiring delegates. set.
N.ting firth their reasons for Withdrawing
from the Convention, is u plain, simple state
mcnt. Caught in few words. the Convcn-
,ion proceeded to DO that which the dele
gates conceived that the people had not
charged them with doing--had not elected
them TO do.
But II may bc asked who is TO determine
this mater? Tho address quotes Senator
Carlisle, than whom there is no abl T parl;;
mcntarian, profoundcr thinker nor more eA-
perienced Democrat in the land, as saying
"whsn Convention is called for special
purpose, its authority is necessarily limited
by the terms of the call itself"
: SO in the decision ofthe Court ofApposis,
Jud 70 o. Ncall held
"A Convention assembling under the Con
stitution is ony the people for the purpose
for which it assemblies.
IL is true the Legislature cannot limit the
Convention, but if the people elect them for
the purpose of doing specific act or duty
pointed out 10y the Act of tho Legislature
the Act would define their powers: for the
people elect in reference to that and nothing
else
So in the same case Chancellor Ilarper's
opinion was
ITO conclude that the people intended 20
invest the Convention with their authority
Tor any other purpose but the purpose speci-
fled would he plain usurpation Of the power
of the people
II will be seen that the opinion of the
great parliamcntariau of to-day was on all
fours with the opinions of two rf the
greatest Judges who ever st on any American
bench: Let us see if NC can get the very
keynote of all these opinions. Is il not in
the underlying principle incarna'stl.5hsr re,s
our Consti'|iu%'--Tc Federal u IS >$hut
the people fonc are sovereign, IN adsa2 miohI
part with this sovereignty or the cXetcifc
thereof so far only as their consent SeeSG
Hence it there be II limit or qualification to
that consent that limit or qualification be-
comesASpart and parcel of the consent
And hence outside the limitation or pualif-
cation, no consent aud outside of the con-
sent, noauthority. GA
AS Judge OSeall clearly puts it: Though
: The Act of u Legislature in itself cannot limit
The powers of the convention, the c'cciou of
the people under the restraining Act accepts
the restraints of the Act and hence defines
the powers it cntrusts " the Convention:
and hence, too, Chaecellor lIarpcr's holding
, that for convention TO so beyond the Spcci-
fled purpose of ts call l@onll be ain usur-
patton of the power of the people.
Nothing can baf clearer, nothing more
pie itself that binds ii Convention TO the
specified purposes of its call.
Now, substituting the members uC a party
for the people, we see the whole power of
the parry rests in the individual members
thereof. And when they choose delegates
under n call for n specified purpose i, ~ the
specified purpose under which they act and
accept as their own limitation aud qualiict-
tion which restraints the chosen Convention,
NJ, al nnt hn,
making the call, whether it be a legislature
or An executive committee.
Agains' all this we see ths Charleston
World uuo'cS the opinion Of the late GEN
James Conner AMI AIS that of the late Capt
+. W. Dawson. We shall cont mt ourselves
with quoting the opinion Of Gen Conner. as
it is quite cvilrn, tue opinion Of the brillian,
editor would harlly ,c acceptcl on II pucs-
lion of law.
General Conner i quoted aS saying:
'Sonc of the Counties had acted one
way nni some another, anil it was a"sn'rtc-
~ necessary that there should be II decision
aud dctcrmnat Oh Of the question, and who
is to decide it? Is il not this Convyution.
which is the Democratic patty of tlE State
OF ) mth Car'lmn? Cin ihr c,'l forth
hSSssSnS - sr.niE: E!aiG:...s; l. II c-minci -
by ;:',hcr iu ismeut til ~ by the il ,m"nt
OF the Dem 'c;atc party il C)nvcuti"n AZ
s,mhlcl -
With the greatest respect for the dc c.scl
il will be n United by all that hIs opinions
would hardly weigh with those of Ncall
and Harper ur those of John q Carlisle
But it will be seen aiicr al that the case
Gen. Conner was dealing with was an en-
trely different one from that before US. ~
lie said, Jmc of the Counties had instructed
one way and some another, and il was HCccS
sIry to determine what course was TO bc
pursued under these diScrcpant instructions.
In the present case all have acted under one
qualifying call iur II Convention. limited by
the call To n specified purpose. and there
were no instructions from the pc ople below
Invadi"g that purpose OF limitation. But
upoa first principles we cannot agree To the
opinion attributed 10 Gen. Conner, that the
Convention is the Democratic party Of South
Ca, olina. The people of the party, and
they n one are the party, aul any other
d ctrne is unsound in law and undcmO.
cratic in priuCirlc.
Nor with Senator Cariisle's opinion before
us and the doctrine Of our courts n TO the
power Of Conventions, can We accept de-
ci'i"n Of Couvcu'ion against the power
vested in it by the people or hcy"nl that
power A. conclusive and binding In such
case there i n)hiny binding ON the pee
pie and nothing binding on any portion Of
them. Any ether doctrine leads To ,,olilical
usurlaion of the peoples own inaicnrblc
rights. And these rights no less apprrtain
toa minority than mIiUWty. 1t i quite II
different thing az to how far it J. wise and
proper for "A minority ola Convention to sui
nit under protest. - what it fccl> convinced
To he unruthorz.d, for the sake of the good
Of the party nnl that of society. T"iimi,q
Register.