Tazewell Republican. [volume] (Tazewell, Va.) 1892-1919, 1906-10-25
Mr.. BRUCE IS OODGING.


were still misrepresenting him as to his
attitude on the question of submitting
the new Constitution to the people for
ratification or rejection.
The Republican" was one of the
first to make this charge, and careful
examination of the record has not
caused us to change our mind. But Mr..
Bruce tries to hide behind the fact that
on the final vote in the State Senate
upon the bill which provided for the
election of delegates to the Constitu-
tional Convention he voted for sub
hitting the Constitution to the people.
He cast that vote, however, after he
had formerly voted against submission,
and after he had voted for two amend
ments to the bill which were intended to
defeat the whole scheme of submission
to the popular vote by providing that the
Constitution, if submitted, should be
passed upon only by.a restricted cleo
torate. Let us see if we are not cor
rect in this.
At the regular session of the General
Assembly in 1S99-19OO bill was intro
duced which provided for an election to
be held on the fourth Thursday in May,
1900, at which election the question was
to be submitted: "Shall there be a
convention to revise the constitution
and amend the same?" An amendment
was offered to this bill which provided,
that if the people of Virginia voted for
holding Constitutional Convention and
that such a convention was held and a
new Constitution framed that it should
be submitted to the people for ratiica-
ton or rejection. Senator Bruce voted
squarely against that amendment. He
had attended the State convention of
his party held at Norfolk in March,
1900, where platform had been adopt
ed which pledged the submission of the
new Constitution to the people. And
Senator Bruce, it seems, joined inwith
Carter Glass, who was the author of the
pledge of submission, at the very first
opportunity to violate that pledge.
From that time until the final vote,
which provided for electing delegates to
the convention, Mr.. Bruce stood with
Mr.. Glass in his effort to defeat the
submission of the Constitution to vote
of the people.
At an extra session of the General
Assembly held in January, 1901, the bill
was introduced providing for electing
members to the Constitutional Conven-
/. ton, which was said to have been called
by a vote of the people. That bill,
which was introduced by Senator Flood,
provided for submitting the Constitution
when framed, to the people. Two amend
ments were offered, at different times,
each amendment intended to confne
the submission to a restricted electorate.
Mr.. Bruce voted for these amendments.
See page 81 of Senate Journal, and page
lis of the same Journal. These amend
ments not only provided for submission
to a restricted electorate but were SO
worded as to make the vicious sugges-
ton to the Constitutional Convention
that it would be invested with authority
to proclaim the new Constitution.
After both these amendments failed
to pass, Mr.. Bruce, under compulsion,
voted for the original bill, because he
knew that in no other way could he and
his associates, such as Mr.. Glass, Sc
cure the holding of convention, the
making of new Constitution and the
consequent Acknowledgement of so many
thousands of the white citizens of the
State.
That we are correct in this position is
proved by the fact that Mr.. Bruce was
an advocate of proclaiming the Consti-
tuition when that question was raised in
the Constitutional Convention. Mr..
Bruce will hardly deny this.
If Mr.. Bruce wants to prove that he
was conscientiously in favor of submit
ting the Constitution to the people let
him declare that he opposed proclama-
ton when that question was being agi-
tated in the Constitutional Convention.