alienable and indefeasible right to alter, re-
form or abolish their government in such
manner as they may think proper."
I will now make one or two references to
the Constitutions of some of the Southern
States. I turn to the Constitution of the
State of Tennessee. In their Declaration of
Rights the first article is in these words :
" That all power is inherent in the people,
and all free governments are founded on their
authority, and instituted for their peace,
safety and happiness; for the advancement
of those ends, they have, at all times, an un-
alienable and indefeasible right to alter, re-
form or abolish the government in such man-
ner as they maty think proper."
I now turn to the bill of rights of the
Constitution of Mississippi, which is the last
one from which I will now read. It is there
declared—
"That all political power is inherent in
the people, and all free governments are
founded on their authority and established
for their benefit; and, therefore, they have,
at all times, an unalienable and indefeasible
right to alter or abolish their form of gov-
ernment in such manner as they may think
expedient."
I find the same in the Constitutions of the
States of Connecticut, Virginia, Kentucky,
Alabama, and every other State that I have
examined. That simple doctrine is asserted,
and left to stand alone in its grandeur. And
nowhere in the bill of rights of any of these
States do I find anything that provides for
the amendment or alteration of their Consti-
tutions. I, therefore, prefer to take the ar-
ticle here as it now stands, and to follow the
guides that have been laid down fur us by
the embodied enlightenment of all the States
of tins Union in making their Constitutions,
rather than to alter it or add anything to it,
which, in my judgment, materially detracts
from its force and effect.
As I have already said, I shall move in the
proper place—under the head of amend-
ments to the Constitution, or some .other
proper place—I shall move myself, if some
other gentleman does not, to insert a provi-
sion prescribing the mode in which this Con-
stitution shall be altered or changed. But I
think that provision ought to be rather ad-
visory and suggestive than positive and di-
rectory in its terms, as it was in the last Con-
stitution, and which the people disregarded ;
or at least as it was in the Constitution of
1776, which, according to the gentleman
from Somerset, (Mr. Jones,) the people dis-
regarded in 1850. The people have always
claimed the right, whenever they chose to
alter their own Constitution, to do it in their
own way. And whether that change in its
incipiency comes from the people, or it is
ratified by the people when proposed by
others, it makes no difference; the people
have said they will not consider binding upon |
them, in reference to the change of their or-
ganic law, anything that any previous Con-
vention may have ordained. For that reason
I think that whilst it is proper for us to in-
sert in its proper place a provision in refer-
ence to amendments or alterations of this
Constitution, that provision ought not to be
In the terms of the present Constitution, that
the people shall alter or amend in this way
and no other; which the people have disre-
garded for themselves and treated as an ab-
surd assertion on the part of those who made
it. I shall therefore support this article as it
now stands, without amendment or alteration.
Mr. BOND. It appears to me that in the
discussion of this question there has not been
that clearness of statement as to what the
question really is, that ought to be put be-
fore this Convention, The question of the
unalienable right of the people to change
their government has been mixed up with
the question of the expediency of providing
some particular mode in which that right
shall be exercised. Now, sir, no one denies
the right of the people to modify or change
their Constitution at will. That is a princi-
ple so universally acknowledged that no man
in any part of the United States, that I am
aware of, has ever been heard to deny it.
But the question here, and the only ques-
tion, as I understand it, is the expediency of
providing some particular mode by which the
people shall act in their exercise of this right.
Shall the people, by the broad declaration
contained in this first article of the report of
the Committee of the Bill of Rights, be left
at liberty to adopt the course of proceeding
which Dorr adopted in Rhode Island; shall
they be left at liberty to say at any time—
our Constitution wants alteration—and to
call meetings throughout the State, in any
county or city of the State? Why, sir, such
a course would be productive of the greatest
anarchy and the greatest evils, and would
probably result in war and bloodshed be-
tween contending parlies. The only thing,
therefore, which seems lo me to be necessary
to provide for in this Constitution, is a way
tor the people to exercise their right to change
their Constitution; not that the people have
no such right, or shall be bound by the act
of this Convention for all time; because the
right of revolution lies behind and beyond
anything this Convention can do to bind
them; nobody doubts that, nobody denies it.
But is it not the safer and better course to
point out some peaceful mode, regulated by
law, by which this chance may be brought
about whenever the people desire it? And
it is with that view that I propose to offer an
amendment to the amendment of the gentle-
man from Somerset (Mr. Jones) to strike out
all after the word "manner " in the fourth
line of this article, and insert the words " as
may be provided by this Constitution."
Then the article will read: |
