Tazewell Republican. [volume] (Tazewell, Va.) 1892-1919, 1901-07-04
"rhere is claim made that this is a

"There is a claim made that this is a
revolutionary body.
"The position is untenable, as l hope to
demonstrate in the course of my argu-
ment.
"There are two methods of changing
organic law; one is by law and one by rev.
olution.
81 shall assume that it is the wish of all
members that this convention be legal,
valid body. That is be de jure as well as
de facto an organized body. The strong
est argument l have seen is embraced in
an article by the honorable member from
Augusta (Mr. Braxton) in the Virginia
State Law Journal, and which strongly
sustains my position now" The speaker
here read from the article mentioned, and
continued:
"There is no difference between the
views expressed by the honorable member
In that article and in those / entertain;
that the people of Virginia in sending dele
gates here, chosen under the authority
and by direction of the Legislature, had
adopted, because they preferred, the
orderly and legal method instead of the
revolutionary"
"rhe Legislature, In obedience to the
Constitution, has provided by law for this
convention. This body is clothed with
all the power known to the State TO act in
legal and constitutional way.
1T is not revolutionary procedure,
but strictly under the rules and regulations
provided by the General Assemble acting
under authority of the Constitution"
The speaker then read a list of decisions
going to show that the duties of members
here constituted them officers in every
sense of the term. The indefniteness OF
our tenure, he claimed, did not enter into
the question. He read from decision of
the Supreme Court of New York declaring
that any one who was appointed to per-
form public duty was an officer.
In California the term officer included
every one in the public service. The
same in South Carolina. He said mem
bers of the Legislature were officers and
showed how members of the convention
were acting in the highest legislative ca
pacity.
"The very suggestion of the sovereignty
of the people emphasizes the fact that we
are officers" he contended. "We are not
the sovereigns. The people who sent us
here are"
The speaker here discussed the provi-
sions of the Constitution concerning the
taking of oaths by officers, and claimed
that it required delegates to Constitutional
Conventions to take an oath, saying that
the requirement that members Of Consti-
tutional Conventions should take the test
oath was distinct recognition that they
were officers, Notwithstanding the fact that
the test oath itself had been eliminated.
He said that the suffrage clause Of that
Constitution also recognized the fact that
all persons elected by the people were
officers. The only persons electors are en-
titled to vote for are officers. No other
class Of representatives are provided for.
The speaker said he challenged the ac-
curacy of the statement that the members
of the convention of 1868 failed to take
the oath except as in the light of the fact
that the convention of 1864 repealed the
requirement Of all oath.
That the convention of 1868 was acting
under authority of Congress and not OF a
prior State Constitution; that this was the
ground taken by General Schofeld, who
said that no authority but Congress gov
erned the body and Congress did not re-
ouire an oath of the delegates.
Can any man here then say that this
question is not one of great doubt. Where
is the man so rash as to say, in view Of
these precedents and authorities, that We
are not officers"
He then discussed the proposition that
the taking of an oath was a condition pre-
cedent to the validity of the acts OF the
convention. He said Is it too much
for the people to ask of us to take an oatl
to faithfully perform our duties, when We
are here with unlimited powers and or
the proper conscientious performance o.
our duties depend the prosperity and th'
liberties of the people of the State"