The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-02-22

a
several esteemed contemporaries who
advocated the calling Of constitutional
| convention. notably the Portsmouth Star,
nave taken The Times TO task FOR not
| coming out in favor Of a convention, now
| that the Legislature has failed to do any
thing IN the direction Of revision. Indeed
| these esteemed contemporaries are dis
posed to hold The Times responsible for
the failure OF the Legislature TO take ac-
ton, when the tact is that they and the
convention advocates in the Legislature
are responsible.
The Times not only old not promise, but
could not have promised anything on be-
! half Of the Legislature. We did not say
tnat the Legislature would take steps TO
revise tho Constitution. We simply said
that the Constitution could be revised in
this way and that al necessary changes
could DE made without the assembling
of "a convention We made the same re-
commendation that Governor Tyler has
now made, that commission be appoint
cd TO take this question into consdera-
ton and 10 submit to the Legislature
! such amendments 10 the Constitution as
| I'M their opinion were desirable. We urg-
ed upon the friends of the convention pro
position to adopt this method and 10 so
m earnestly and sincerely for constitu-
uonaI revision through the method pre-
scribed by the constitution itself. But
with one accord thep apurned the sugges-
ton. and we cannot but think that their
purpose in so doing was that they might
rise M at last and say that the legis-
lauve initiative was a failure and that
constitutional convention was therefore
demanded. And now with that record
behind them. they argue that The Times
shodld come over to their side and advO-
cate convention.
while admitting that some desirable
changes might be made in the Constitu-
ton The Times has never believed that
the great benefits which the enthusiasts
have promised through constitutional re-
vision were practicable. We have simply
said that We would be pleased TO see
these proposed amendments submitted TO
the people and that the opportunity to
40 30 would be offered when the Legisla-
ture should meet But our friends have
failed to take advantage of the opportu-
nifty ana they have nobody to blame but
themselves.
We arc quite willing that the people
| shall have an opportunity 20 vote ON such
amendments TO the Constitution as may
he proposed, but We are not willing to
delegate to a convention plenary powers
TO rc-write the organic law OF this State
| without reference TO the wishes OF the
people. We are unwilling that the con-
yenuon shall have authority TO tamper
with the suffrage and TO exclude whom it
may from the privilege Of voting
IN reply 90 this objection the Norfolk
Landmark says:
| would &c not be better for q few white
| men TO DO DISTINGUISHED than for every
| white man en- the State TO be doubtful of
| his ability TO have his vote counted as ne
| prefers 10 cast it2 The issue lies between
a restricted. but honest ballot a+.d an un-
| limited but uncertain one.
And tho Petersburg 1ndex-Appeal says:
| Necessarily many iliterate white men
| would be disfranchised under an oduca-
! uonal qualification for suffrage, but is it
not also true that, under present condi-
| tions. many of the worthiest and most
| intelligent white men of the state are
! DISTINGUISHED IL they do not vote with the
! machine? Which, pray, IS the worse
| condition: Acknowledgement by a quail
| ncation which encourages mental and
| moral improvement and which every
| man may possess by little effort. or
| ACKNOWLEDGMENT by fraud, against which
no effort win avail?
And We ask our contemporaries what
| guarantee they can furnish that con-
vention will do any more FOR honest cleo
| lions than the Legislature now in ses-
sion has done?