The Pickens sentinel. [volume] (Pickens, S.C.) 1871-1903, 1891-12-24
A SPICY DEBATE
IN THE HOUSE LVER THE CON-
STIJUTlONAL CONVENTION.

How tho Members Voted.
COLUMBIA, ). c., Dec. 1.-the con-
stitutiOnal convention resolution con-
sumed much of the morning session of
the House Friday, and very lively de-
bate was precipitateu. There was op-
position to the calling of such conYen-
ton, and very decided objection to pass.
ing the joint resolution without a pro.
viso that the action of the convention
to be called should be submitted to the
people for ratification.
The resolution came up for a second
reading and Mr.. Abney, of Richland,
offered the following amendment:
Provided, however, that no ConSttu-
ton formed, or which may be formed,
by such convention shall be binding or
60 into effect until it shall have been
submitted to the people of the State for
ratification, and shall have been ratified
by the votes of a majority of the quail
fed voters of the State voting upon
such question.
MIR. Evans Of Aiken, said that there
might be political or other reasons why
the question should not be submit ed
back, and he moved to table the amend
ment.
law should be 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 a
constitutional convention, as he would
have no assurance that he would have
anything to say about the new
constitution. He would be In thesame
position as he is now. The people want
Constitution that they themselves
make.
MIR. BuiSt opposed the amendment
lie said that the people wanted the con-
Vention and that their views would be
expressed by the representatives they
sent to the convention.
MIR. Fowler favored the amendment.
lie declared with great emphasis that
whenever the Reform movement under
took to take away the right of the peo-
pie ito vote for themselves the sooner
its political sun set the better. To de-
feat this amendment would be taking
away from the people the very rights a
Republican form of goYement gave
them.
Mr.. Watts hoped the amendment
would prevail. lie believed in remand
ing the action Of the convention to the
people.
Mr.. Blease tackled Mr.. Fowler on his
inconsistency in declaring that prohibi-
tion must be decided by the Legislature,
and then wheeling about 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.. Burn believed in referring this
action of the! convention back to the
people.
Mr.. Fowler retorted in answer to Mr..
Blease. that he, BleaSe, was il a posi-
ton similar to that he was trying to
put him in. Mr.. BleaSe had appealed
TO have the prohibition question sub
mitted to the people, and yet now he
refused them the right to ratify con-
VentiOn'S action.
Mr. 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
tiVcs to the convention for the purpose
of carrying out their wishes. He said
that there were several reasons why the
action Of the convention should not be
submitted to the people. He tried to
impress upon Mr.. Fowler that the Clear
people" had all the rights they were on
titled to in simply having the question
OF holding a convention submitted to
them.
MIR. Hazard, of Georgetown, was op-
posed to holding a constitutional con-
vention. Every member who voted for
it would rue the day. The political
conditions of South Carolina were such
as to warn us not to approach the brink
of this yawning ,chasm. The amend
ment was an attempt to preserve the
rights OF the people and If the people
were bent on having Il convention they
should insist on the right to ratfy it's
action.
Mr.. Youmans opposed the amend
ment and said it would defeat the OBJ.
ject for which the bill was drafted.
Mr.. Hughes, Of Charleston, said a
constitutional convention was very
grave thing. Its action should be re-
ferred back to the people because the
result was Heterogeneous mass Of new
laws that the people knew nothing
about. Nobody could be sent to the
convention who would exactly or even
nearly represent their wishes Or these
mulitudinouS matters.
Mr.. Patterson favored the amend
ment. Once adopted, the people were
bound by its provisions. lie would not
vote for any man to go to constitu-
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.. Ioumans said that the amend
ment was an attemptto bind the action
of some future Legislature, which, he
held was unfair.
Mr.. Abney discussed the argument
that the amendment was premature. lie
said that If the question was left to the
next Legislature the people would have
no guarantee, the election coming Ee.
fore then, that they would have any
right thereafter to ratify the action Of
the convention. by the terms of the
resolution the next Legislature would
be prevented from so doing. Was it
possible that the Legislature wanted to
make 1T 80 that few men, dressed with
brief authority, should in their great
wisdom and patriotism frame the thous-
and and one rules to which all the acts
and laws Of the 100000 peopleof South
Carolina weret to be adjusted, and which
NIL h, nIn, l>I, 60.