Tazewell Republican. [volume] (Tazewell, Va.) 1892-1919, 1901-07-11
THURSDAY, JULY IL, 1901.
COL. CAMERON'S SPEECH.

Ex-Governor Wllilaln T. Oa'nolO"
twenty years ago was an interesting inquire
in Virginia politics. He was then the
most conspicuous champion OF the CIVIL
and political rights Of the masses
Again he is an interesting figure IN the
notifies of the State; but now occupies an
entirely different position from that ne
held in former days-being actively asso-
ciated with that class of persons who
twenty years ago were vilifying him Tor
exercising his prerogative to protect the
rights of citizens secured to them by or
oanic law. Having changed front so
completely it was very proper that ne
should be groomed by Senator Daniel, who
WAS his uncompromising political foe in
the memorable conflicts Of 1881 and 1888.
For we are told that when Colonel Gam
eron delivered his speech in the Constltu'
tonal Convention few days ago Senator
Daniel vacated his seat and desk that
Cameron might occupy them to make
forensic display in the eliminating scene
of the portentous drama that was placed
upon the stage in 1881. 1t will be remem
bered that when the play began Cameron
and Daniel were the two central hgures'
filling the roles of implacable political Toes
ana representing parties that are no"
practically divided on the same lines that
separated them then. 1t is no wonder
that Daniel lead the applause as Cameron
adroitly endeavored to defend the violent
assault that'is contemplated on existing
organic law and the vested rights OF CIT
liens, Just as Daniel did eighteen years
AGO when he led band of revolutionary
partisans in the Legislature Of Virginia ID
their successful outrage upon law and pre-
cedent for the purpose of overriding and
DESTROYING the Constitutional power OF the
then Governor of Virginia, William +.
Cameron. Then, under the advice and
leadership of Senator Daniel, lawfully
elected members of the State Senate and
House of Delegates were turned out Of
those bodies that two-thirds majority
might be secured to destroy the veto
power of the Governor, that partlsan,re
olutionary legislation might he accomplish
ed. Then Senator Daniel boldly pro-
claimed that if they could not find pre-
cedent they would make one.
1t Is said that the inhabitants Of Hades
make the regions of the lost reverberate
with wells of triumph when all unfortu
nate human soul is added to their dehantly
wicked ranks. So has the violent and
revolutionary element of the Virginia
Democracy, which has determined to
trample upon the supreme law of the land
and destroy the civil and political rights
of certain classes of our citizens, welcomed
to its fold spirit which once stood as
bright, heroic figure, welding his lawful
official power against wrong until his arm
was paralyzed by the poisoned shafts OF
the political forces with whom he now
marches.
Colonel Cameron, with keen, intuitive
Knowledge, knew the audience he was ad'
dressing, and did not fail to fully use his
great gifts as a rhetoriclan and actor In
playing upon the vanity and passions OF
the sentimental and bitterly partisan por-
ton of his auditors.
In the recent past our associations and
relations with Colonel Cameron, personally
and politically, were too intimate and COL
dial for us not to have then and now the
warmest regard for him personally. 1t
is. therefore, from a pure sense Of duty
that we will undertake to criticise and re-
fute what we believe to be the erroneous
positions he assumed in advocating the
idea that the members Of the Constitution
al Convention should take no oath. The
revolutionists have pronounced it the
greatest speech made on the subject. 1t
was clever in conception, but, to our mind,
is a mass of sentiment, sophistry and bald
assertion.
Colonel Cameron based bis remarks on
certain premises or apothegms, which he
did not state until nearly the close OF his
speech. They were:
"No oath is required of any sovereign
on earth.
"There is NJ one 10 whom sovereign
is responsible or can take an oath.
"The idea of an oath implies the exis-
tence of superior.
ave are the people for the purposes set
forth of framing a Constitution. Towhom
then shall we swear fidelity except to our
selves?"
The first, second and fourth propositions
are not true. The third is true, but the
meaning is construed in the wrong direc-
tion.
Every sovereign in a constitutional
monarchy is required to take an oath to
obey and honestly execute the laws of his