The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1891-12-23
4 SPICY DEBATE
IN THE HOUSE JVER THE CON-
STlTUTlCNAL CONVENTION.

STlTUTlONAL CONVENTION.
/ pie Should yots On the New Constitu-
tion and Others Think they Should Not
How rhe Members Voted.
COLUMBIA, 5. c., Dec. 1.-THE COZ
stitulional convention resolution con-
sumed much of the morning session Of
the House Friday. and very lively de-
bate was precipitateC. There Was op
position to the calling Of such a conyen-
tio1l, :.nd very decided objection TO pass
ing The Joint resolution without pro-
! viso tl:at the action ct the convention
! 20 be called should be submitted 20 the
people for ratification.
! The resolution came up fer 4 second
reading ard Mr.. Abney, of Richland,
offe 'eH the following amendment:
Pro ,ided. however, that 10 'Constitu-
ton termed, o. which may be formed,
! by such COZ yention shall be binding or
20 ilitc effect until it shall have been
F., submit ttec TO the people of the State for
-atiicatlo !. ard shall have been ratified
oy the votes OF a majority 81 the quail
ned voters Of the State voting upon
such question.
Mr. Evans of Aiken, said that there
might be political or other reasons why
the question should not be submitted
back, and he moved to tab.e the amend
menC.
MIR. Abney said that the fundamental
law should he decided upon by the peo-
pie in their individual capacity. Under
the bill as it stands the elector would
have no incentive to vote for calling
constitutional convention, as he would
have no assurance that he would have
ANYTHING 70 say about the new
constitution. He would be in the same
| position as be is now. The people want
Constitution. that they themselves
make.
Mr.. Bulst opposed the amendment
He said that the people wanted the con-
Yention and that their views would be
expressed by the representatives they
sent to the convention.
Mr.. Fowler favored the amendment.
| He declared with great emphasis that
/ Wu6uCfSI GuS 1eSlOl IA eAoSA
| took to take away the right of the peo-
pie Ito vote for themselves the sooner
Its political sun set the better. T0 de-
feat this amendment would be taxing
away from the people the very rights
| Republican form of goVement gave
| them.
| Mr.. Watts hoped the amendment
would prevail. He believed in remand
ing the action OF the convention to the
people.
inconsistency in declaring that prohibl-
ton must be decidedly the Legislature,
and then wheeling abous and declar-
ing in the next breath that the people
| must decide this question. Mr.. Blease
! thought it would be.injudicious, at this
time" to cripple the bill with this
amendment.
Mr. Barn believed in referring this
action Of thei convention back to the
| people.
Mr.. Fowler retorted in answer to Mr.
Blease, that The, Blease, was ia a posi-
| ton similar to that he was trying to
| put him in. Mr.. BleaSe had appealed
| to have the prohibition question sub
mittod to the people, and yet now ne
| refused them the right to ratify Goa
| vertion's action.
/ MI. Evans said that he could see no
wisdom in referring the action OF the
convention back to the dear people, as
they would knowingly elect representa-
tives to the convention for the purpose
Of carrying out their wishes. He SAID
! thar thsre we're several reasons why the
! action Of the convention should not be
| submitted to the people. He tried to
impress upon Mr.. Fowler that the dear
! people" had all the rights they were en-
titleG to in simply having the qusstlop
of holding convention submitted 10
them.
Sir. Hazard, OF Georgetown, was op-
poseG to holding a constitutional CON
! yention. Every member who voted Tor
If would rue the day. The political
| conditions OF South Carolina were such
as to warn US not to approach the brink
of his yawring chasm. The amend
ment was an attempt to preserve the
rights of the people and If the people
we're bent on having convention they
| shonid insist on the right to ratify its
| Mr.. Youmans opposed the amend
ment and said it would defeat the OBJ
iect ior which the bill was drafted:
Mr.. Hughes, of Charleston, said
ron stitutional convention was very
grave thing. Its action snoulo De re-
ferred back to the people because tne
! result was heterogeneous mass OF new
laws that the people kre" nothlng
about. Nobody could be sent 10 the
convention who would exactly OF even
| nearly represent their Wlsnes OF Inese
muitudinous matters.
MIR. Patterson favored the amend
ment. Once adopted, the people were
hound bY its provisions. He would cot
| vote for any ma1I to 80 to constltu-
! tional convention and make laws that
would bind him without his having an
| opportunity to review his action. he
warned the Legislature that the defeat
of the amendment would defeat the
convention, as the people would not
vote for holding it without the right TO
review its action.
Mr. Youmans said that the amend
ment was an attemptto to bind the actlon
of some future Legislature, which, ne
| held was unfair.
Mr.. Abney discussed the argument
that the amendment was premature. He
said that il the question was LETT to the
next Legislature the people would nave
no guarantee, the election coming De-
fore then, that they would have any
right thereafter to ratify the acton OF
the convention. BY the terms OF the
resolution the next Legislature would
be prevented from so doing. Was 1t
possible that the Legislature wanted to
make it so that few men, dressed with
brief authority. should IL their great
wisdom and patriotism frame the thous-
and and one rules to which al the acts
and laws of the 1900 900 people OF Seuth
Carolina wereto be adjusted, ana "hlcn
would be Interchangeable for many years.
to come?
Mr.. Evans submitted that the resolu-
flor, ,5as nremature and uDcOnStltutlOn-