|
it, sir, that bill of rights would be but an empty
casket, unseemly and valueless. Change without
civil war — adaptation of the government to the
wants of the people without bloodshed ! This,
sir, is the whale end and purpose of my amend-
ment. But, sir, the gentleman from Kent, (Mr.
Chambers,) "scents treason in the wind." This
does not surprise me, neither would it fright me
from my propriety, if he should discover "it was
flat burglary." The amendment he had offered
was like the line and plumet, it would separate
the reformers and the anti-reformers of that body,
and with great deference, he placed the gentle-
man from Kent at the head of the latter. He had
been called upon to unveil the monster which
which lurked under the drapery of his amend-
ment.
Now, sir, let me first premise if the principle
is a good one; if it be just and true, let it be in-
serted in the bill of rights. Nothing that he
could say, would add to its intrinsic merit, and
surely it should not be allowed to lose its force
by any attempt on his part to illustrate it. But,
sir, the gentleman from Kent, in putting inqui-
ries, seeks a full and frank disclosure of the
scope and objects designed by me. The Con-
vention will remember this amendment was of-
fered without comment, and he .was willing that
the Convention should vote "aye"or"noe" upon it,
as the principle itself should inspire confidence
or alarm. The gentleman from Kent, has in-
deed taken high ground; he denies, with great
emphasis, that such a principle has been adopted
in any form of Government, with which he has
been acquainted, that it is a monstrous proposi-
tion. Before this discussion closes, he will per-
haps recognise his present position, while hold-
ing a seat on this floor, as alone justifiable in the
doctrine of peaceable revolution, by the will of
the people, which he, (Mr. f.) was struggling to
maintain. He will pardon the resort to the
argumentum ad Aominum. The proposition sub-
mitted by him was not an original one, either in
the idea or the language in which it is expressed.
It shines in letters of living light upon the face
of many, if not the greater part, of the bills of
rights of the several States of this glorious Union.
In the constitution of Virginia — the mother of
States, as she has been justly styled — the follow-
ing language is employed : — "That government
is, or ought to be, instituted for the common bene-
fit, protection, and security of the people, nation
or community. Of all the various forms of gov-
ernment, that is best which is capable of p reduc-
ing the greatest degree of happiness and 'safety,
and is most effectually secured against the dan-
ger of mal-administration, and that when any
government, shall be found inadequate or con-
trary to these purposes, a majority of the com-
munity hath an indubitable, unalienable right to
alter, reform or abolish it, in such manner as
shall be judged most conducive to the public
weal." Indeed, sir, the absence of such a provi-
sion in the several Constitutions consti tute excep-
tions. A similar feature to that he had quoted is
to be found in the Constitutions of Maine, Ver-
mont and other of the elder States, and it is in-
corporated in most, if not all of the new States.
|
Bear in mind, sir, no other mode is prescribed in
the Constitution of Virginia and several other
States of the Union, for the reform or alteration
of their organic law. All is wisely left to the
wisdom, patriotism and sound common sense of
the people. Did the illustrious men who framed
that Constitution contemplete a bloody reyolutir n
as the appropriate mode? It is not for us to -set
limits upon the action of the people Let not the
agent lord it over his principal.
In the Virginia Convention of 1830, the follow-
ing resolution was offered:
"Resolved, That in the opinion of the commit-
tee that the Constitution of this State ought to
ae so amended, as to provide a mode in which
future amendments shall be made therein."
It was voted down, ayes 28, noes 68.
John Randolph addressed the Convention in
opposition to its adoption, in the following sig-
nificant language. "I shall vote against this res-
olution, and I will state as succintly as I can, my
reasons for doing so. I believe they will in sub-
stance be found in a very old book, and convey-
ed in these words, 'sufficient unto the day is the
evil ;thereof.' Sir, I have remarked since the
commencement of our deliberations, and With
no small surprise, a very great anxiety to pro-
vide forftUurify. Gentleman, for example, are
not content with any present discussion«f the
Constitution, unless we will consent to prescribe
for all time hereafter. I had always thought
him the most skilful physician, who, when called
to a patient, relieved him of the existing malady
without undertaking to prescribe for such, as
might by possibility endure thereafter." And
yet, sir, in the face of all this, gentlemen say the
necessity is urgent and cannot be avoided, that
some mode of change must be fixed by the Con-
stitution. If so, which he denied, it would be
time enough to consider that after we had set
forth the bill of rights.
In the language of the bill of rights of Texas,
which, if report be true, is the work of that illus-
trious statesman, John C. Calhoun, and which, in
its features show the chisel of a master's hand, is
the identical language embodied in my amendment
He had had it demanded of him, in terms and
tones indicating anticipated annihilation, whether
he designed to uphold the doctrine that the peo-
ple are not bound to adhere to the terms of the
compact to which they are parties. His plain an-
swer was this : that no Convention that ever sat
or ever will sit in this republican land hare the
right to bind posterity. The people are omnipo-
tent, and when they speak it is "the delegated
voice of God.'1 The creature is not above the
Creator. The compact is binding so long as the
sovereignty who framed it, wills it and until re-
voked, is supreme over all and must be obeyed ;
but it cannot survive one moment longer than
the people ordain that it should last.
He held that the theory of compact between
counties in a State, or .the minority with the ma-
jority, requiring the assent of all to change their
'Constitution, to be founded in error— gross error.
There is but one party — the people. The majori-
ty of the people can make or un make it. If
|
