The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1894-10-24
The News and Courier.

On the 28th of November, 1890,
Mr.. Meetze introduced in the senate
Joint resolution to provide for the
calling of constitutional convention.
(Senate journal, page ~ On the
4th of December. 1890, Mr. Meetze,
from the committee on the judiciary,
reported this joint resolution favor
ably. (Journal, page 72.) On the
5th of December the joint resolution
received its second reading, and was
ordered for third reading. On the
second reading the yeas were % and
the nays were s. Page l12.) On
December 2Srd, 1890, the joint reso-
lution was continued until the next
session. page 1876. On the lst of
December, 1891. the joint resolution
to provide for the calling of consti-
tutional convention was taken up for
a third reading.
Mr.. Smythe moved to amend by
adding the following to the JOINT reso-
luton:
Provided, however, that no con-
stitution formed, or which may be
framed, by such convention shall! be
binding or go iato 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 voters of the State
voting upon such question
This amendment was rejected-l1
to rs.
Mr.. Sloane moved the following
amendment:
provided, that in the call OF such
convention it shall be with the dis
tine. understanding and upoa the ex-
plicit condition that any Constitution
to be framed by the said convention
shall contain a provision for an annual
tax for the benefit of the free public
schools of this State of not less than
the amount now prescribed by Sec
tion 5 of Article 10 Of the present
constitution, aud that the vote of this
State, as prescribed in this joint
resolution, shall be considered and
held as calling such constitutional
convention with this limitation upon
its powers
This amendment was rejected
yeas 81, nays sand the joint resolu-
ton passed by vote of 26 to 10.
(Journal, pages l0l, 1922
The theory upon which these
amendments were proposed IN the
Legislature to the joint resolutions
calling a constitutional convention
was not that the Legislature had the
right to limit the powers Of the con-
vention. The opponents of the con
vention scheme recognized that the
convention was superior to the legis-
lature. aud what it did was binding
and authoritative. But they conceived
the law to be that the people them.
selves may limit the powers of their
representatives in convention assem-
bled. If the people select represen-
tatives to go to a, convention and at
the time of the election the people
themselves limit the authority which
these delegates are to exercise, then
in our opinion the delegates are so
limited, because they are the repre-
sentatives of the people clothed with
such powers as tue. people chose to
give them.
If then call be submitted to the
suffrages of the people, which call
provides that the delegates, when in
convention assembled, shall not inter
tere with the homestead or school
fund, and that the constitution so
prepared by them shall first be sub
nitted to the people. and the people
choose to adopt such call, then the
limitation is effective, not because the
Legislature has said anything, but
because the people themselves, in
selecting their delegates have seen
fit to limit their authority by these
provisions
In the house the joint resolution
was read the first time on December
2, 1891, aud referred to the COM
mittee on judiciary. House journal,
page 1897
The relsoution came up for Sec
ond reading December IL, 1894.
Mr.. Abney proposed the following
amendment
Provided, however, that no con-
stitution framed, or which may be
framed by such convention, shall be
binding or go into effect until it shall
have been ratified by the votes of
majority of the qualified voters of the
State voting upon such question.
Which was lost by vote Of Sc
to 48.
Mr.. Haskell moved the following
amendment
provided, That in the call Of such
convention is shall be with the dis
4