The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1901-10-10

resolution TO come squarely into the open
ana move TO abollSu the committee en-
tirely.
Juuge Thompson was the patron of that
teSoiutlontand it was badly beaten, Madi-
son, Marshall and Monroe all opposing 1t.
Iiia Alabama Convention that did not
use the committee OF the whole had moth
ing before il but the suffrage. 1t had
changed its Constitution once since the
days Of reconstruction. With US every
thing relating to our form of government
from constable TO Governor has to be
oyeihauled, considered and fixed as an
organic law
Mr.. Hunton said he was little conscious
that his resolution was such a terrible
thing when he offered it,
30 far as the objection by the gentle
man from Chesterfield (Ir Hancock. it
, could make no earthly difference TO him,
because the record would show that he
never Wavexed in his vote, which was in
Varlably given in opposition 20 everything
that offered to amend or change the pres
ent Constitution in the smallest particu>
lar
lie then referred to the argument of Mr..
Brown, that members would not like to
change their opinion by saying that this
was a common practice in the Senate and
House of Representatives. He said the
Senate OF the United States had practi-
caily the same rule as the one he sought.
and insisted that its adoption would great
y dignity and expedite the proceedings of
the committee.
WAS DEFEATED.
The resolution was defeated: Yeas "a.
nays. 49,
Mr. Withers offered resolution to
abolish the Committee of the WhoIa. He
said he wished to do something to get rid
OF double speeches on every question
That if the same discussion occurred in
| the convention that had been heard in
! away from Richmond. The Committee of
the Whole was only having the effect TO
i put the convention in a hole.
| Mr.. BraHton raised the point of order
! that this matter had been once consid-
! cred.
The President ruled that the di .ect mo-
| ton to abolish the committee had not
! been acted on.
! Judge Quarles raised the point that the
motion changed the rule and without a
tWo-thrds vote it would have TO lie on
The table for one DAY before being act
Cd on. The point of order was sustained.
Mr.. Withers then asked for immediate
consideration, two-thirds falling to vote
for immediate consideration and the mat
ter went over.
LEGISLATIVE REPORT.
| The convention then resolved itself into
| Committee of the Whole to consider the
report of the Legis!ati tive Committee.
| Chairman Moore announced that owing
! to the absence of Mr. Flood, the quad
| rcnnial election section would be passed
| over The amendment offered by a mi
nority Of the committee to strike out
property damaged from the section, re-
| euiring payment for property taken for
public uses was then considered.
Judge Robertson advocated striking out
~. cojN hat iNS
the committee would lead to {. complete
reversal of the wel-estabished doctrine
or eminent domain. III I'll, arsel.ce OF
such a provision, he claimed that the
LEGISLATURE had complete control or the
matter and was more competent TO deal
| with it as occasion arose II there was
any evil growing out of tis present sys-
fem the LEGISLATURE could correct 1t. II
the proposed change is adoptea here it
will become the law Of the land Without
any practical chance of changing 1t Tor
the next fifty years, no matter aS" harsh
and disastrous may be its operations.
| He stated that under the present law,
when property is taken, damages are al
| lowed to the residue OF the property ac-
! cording to the recommendation Of the
| COMMITTEES appointed to assess damages
! on the property physically condemned to
| public uses. This has been done by legis-
latives enactment. The Legislature has
/, never provided that properly not taken
! can get damages and the present amend
| ment to the Constitution is for the pur-
| nose of allowing damages to owners Of
| property affected by public improvements
| on property actually taken. He made this
| illustrations: When the city of Richmond
| undertakes to grade a street the abutung5
| property-owner. no matter how much he
| may be damaged. has no claim against
| the city, because the corporation has the
right of eminent domain on its streets. If
| the proposed ordinance is adopted every
city will be liable for damages because
! the courts in all those States having the
J constitutional provision sought to be in
! serted here have SO decided.
STOP IMPROVEMENTS
| He admitted that a great deal might be
said on both sides Of this question, but.
| the principle was sound that individual
rights must give way. to the public neces-s
.sity. He declared that such a law would
practically put stop to al public i'm
proy ementSa in cities He said Roanoke