Tazewell Republican. [volume] (Tazewell, Va.) 1892-1919, 1907-02-21
He SPOKE The TRUTH.

before Judge Golf at Richmond, made a
severe assault upon the late Constitu-
tional Convention and the partisan
creation that revolutionary body pro
mulgated as the organic law of Vir-
ginia. Captain Wise said in part:
The convention not only refused to
take the oath but would not admit that
there was honor among thieves. When
they determined to ram the Constitu-
ton down the threats of the people they
would not trust the officers of the State.
but required all of them to take test
oath.
But waving the question of taking
the oath; waving the question of or
ganization, l say that they had no right
to scour this State from Accomac to
Lee, and from Fairfax to Pittsylvania
for petty politicians, out of whom to
make registrars to do dirty political
work and to deprive men of their con-
sttutional rights"
Commenting on what it calls ''Mr.
Wise's ranting and railing at the Con-
stitutional Convention the Richmond
Times-Dispatch says:
The Constitutional Convention was
the representative of the supreme pow
er Of the people of Virginia
These delegates came to Richmond
clothed with all the power that the peo-
pie could confer upon them, and when
that convention met it was as though
all the people of the State, one and all,
had met in general assembly. There
were no limitations upon the powers of
the delegates save the limitations of the
Constitution of the United States They
were not required to take an oath"
The Times-Dispatch admits that there
were limitations upon the powers of the
delegates, to-wit: the supreme law of
the land, the Constitution of the United
States. And it was to avoid vio-
lating those limitations that the dele
gates decided not to take an oath. 1t
was so declared by one of the ablest
members of the convention, when he
stated that he was opposed to taking an
oath, for the reason that if they did they
would be unable to do what they had
come together for, without they were
willing to take an oath and then violate
it.
If there were limitations to the pow
ers of the delegates, was it not their
bounden duty to take an oath not to
violate the law which set these limita-
tions?
The Times-Dispatch says that the
delegates assembled in Richmond with
all the power the people could confer
upon them. This is not true, because
the people never gave them anything
but representative power with we'll
known limitations to that power
Authority to proceed without taking the
oath of representative or agent was
never given to the delegates by the peo-
pie And authority to promulgate q
was specifically denied and withheld.
When the question of whether Consti-
tutional Convention should be called and
held was submitted to the people, it was
done with positive assurance that if a
convention was ordered and held and a
new constitution framed it should be
submitted to the people for ratification
or rejection. Then, when it was claim
&c that the question had been carried
before the people, their representatives
in the General Assembly of Virginia,
acting for them, ordered by an Act that
an election should be held for delegates
to Constitutional Convention; and in
stead OF investing the delegates to that
convention with the sovereign power to
promulgate the constitution, that sover-
eign power was specifically reserved by
the Act of the General Assembly. In
other words, the very law under and
from which the delegates to the Consti-
tutional Convention assembled and act
ed, commanded them, when a constitu-
ton was framed to submit it back to
the sovereign people, that they might
pass in judgment upon the handiwork of
those whom they had chosen as their
mere representatives and agents to do
limited work. But the agents, the
chosen se---''ts, as has frequently been
done before, Esurped sovereign author
ity; and in this instance disgraced the
political party of which they we're mem
bers by violating a sacred pledge not to
usurp such authority. No graver poIiti-