Tazewell Republican. [volume] (Tazewell, Va.) 1892-1919, 1902-04-24
SENATOR DANIEL
FOR SUBMISSION.
lie Writes a Letter to the Richmond
Dispatch Giving His Views.
DEMOCRATS PLEDGED TO SUBMIT.
The Pledge Was to Submit The Constitution
to the People, and if They bo Not
Want it They Should Not
Be Compelled TO
Accept It,
DEMOCRATS PLEDGED TO SUBMIT.

The following letter from Senator Daniel
to the Richmond Dispatch, shows how the
Senator regards the proposed perddy Of
his party in proclaiming the New Con-
stitution. 1t must be very morlifyiDg to
man of Senator Daniels high character
10 see the attitude of the Democratic
leaders and the press on the question OF
submission of the constitution to the
people. He remembers how he and other
Democratic speakers in 1900 asserted that
the Republicans we're lying when they
charged that the Democrats would
violate the pledge made in their platform
and repudiate the mandate of the Act OF
Assembly for submitting the New Con-
sttution tn the people. Senator Daniels
letter is an unanSwerable argument as to
the perRdiors conduct of his party Oh this
Question. Read the letter and preserve
it.
United States Senate,
Washington, d. c., April 10, 1902.
To tie Editor Of the Dispatch:
have just reached here from Richmond
and have your favor inqniring as to my
position respecting the submission Of the
constitution to a vote of the people for
ratification or rejection. 1t should, in my
opinion, be submitted This was the uni
versa expression of Democratic opinion
prior to the calling of the convention; and
| was one Of those who made the distinct
declaration Of favor to submission. The
people took us at our WORD and called the
convention; and we should keep our word,
now that the work is done. As to what
people the constitution should be sub
mitted 10 is another question. Both the
Act of Assembly, which relates to the
matter, and the platform of the Norfolk
Democratic convention, speak OF 1.-THE
people" as the proper palties for the con-
stilution to be submitted to, Using no
manner Of qualification or limitation. The
call for the convention was made 10y "the
people" without any qualification OF
limitation upon their number or character
save that they we're qualified voters, ol
course. The submission back to them OF
the constitution which they elected the
convention to prepare, would be according
to the natural aud grammatical construc'
ton of the pledges made by the Norfolk
Democratic platform and by Democratic
speakers everywhere.
Nothing was said in the canvass about
proclaiming Que part Of the constitution
and submitting another part. The pledge
of submission to the people" was made
as to 'fhe constitution" and not as to a
part of the constitution; and performance
shorld be as broad and full as the pledge.
There h much good. in the new con-
stilulion, and shall support its atOpion'
notwithstanding the fact that | would
prefer that some Of its provisions were
different from what they are. "The
people" wanted the convention and called
it. If they want the new constitution
they will adopt it. If they do not want it,
they should not be compelled to accept it.
These are my views. frankly, though
hastily stated and there is no privacy
about them. You can use this i'll any
way you deem proper
Very truly yours,
JONI w. DANIEL.