the 3d February, 1864, directed a vote to be
taken upon the call of a convention; if a ma-
jority should decide in favor of the call, an
election of delegates was to be held in the
manner directed by the act, which also prescribed
an oath to be taken by the challenged
voter (of very doubtful legality.) The sixth
section provides that the form of government
prepared by the convention shall besubmitted
to the legal and qualified voters of the State
for their adoption or rejection; that the pro-
visions of said act/or the qualification of vo-
ters, and the holding of the elections provi-
ded for in the previous sections, shall be ap-
plicable to the election to be held under that
section. The eighth section provides, that if
a majority of the legal voters shall adopt the
said form of government as a constitution,
the governor shall issue his proclamation de-
claring the fact.
In the form of government fabricated by
the convention and submitted to fie people,
a provision exists, requiring as an essential
qualification for the legal voters of the State,
before casting their ballots for or against the
said paper, that they shall take an oath not
provided for in the constitution under which
we live, or any law to be found upon the
statute books, and in express violation of the
requirements of the act of 1864, under which
a legal existence was derived to the conven-
tion. This attempted innovation upon the
constitution and statutes of the State must
be designated for some sinister object, no
less, we presume, than a disfranchisement of
a large portion oof the qualified voters, whose
residence, property and interests identify
them with the State, if a majority of the
voters shall reject the said plan of govern-
ment it will be inoperative and as a piece of
blank paper. It is now of no more force or
validity than any act reported to either
branch of the legislature and not acted upon.
It is a mere proposition which is to be ac-
cepted or repudiated. It is but a skeleton,
a form or plan, without vitality or energy
It requires the people to breathe into it life
and power; till then it is as a feather floating
upon the breeze of popular opinion. If this
be the true character of the instrument, how
can it now, inert, inactive, without any
symptoms of legal existence, contain power
to disfranchise a voter, and subject him to a
trial and ordeal unknown to the constitution
and laws under which we are living?
We hold our property, our rights and privi-
leges under the constitution of 1851, and the
laws of the State made in pursuance thereof.
Could the proposed constitution, before its
adoption, deprive a main of his property on-
liberty if it contained such provisions? No
one would assert it. How then can it affect
a voters constitutional right to vote at
" every election ' 'to be held? The same real-
son would apply to both, because of its in-
herent want of life and energy. It follows |
that the provision is unconstitutional. The
convention exceeded its authority, and as tar
as that excess extends its pretended enact-
ment is inoperative and void. But as judges
of elections, who are not supposed to be very
conversant with law, and may deem them-
selves under an obligation to conform to its
revisions in the respect mentioned, .'and as
the legal and qualified voters must look to
another and higher source of power and au-
thority for anticipated redress and a vindi-
cation of their constitutional and legal rights,
they naturally turn to you, the chief execu-
tive of the State, and ask your prompt and
efficient interposition by a proclamation or let-
ter of instruction to the judges of election to
disregard the unjust and illegal requirements
attempted to lie put upon the loyal voters of
the State. the fourth article of the bill of
rights declares that the executive is the
trustee of the public. The fifth article says
that "every free white mule citizen, living
the qualifications prescribed by the constitu-
tion, ought to have the right of suffrage."
The ninth section of the first article of the
constitution declares that the governor shall
lie commander-in-chief of the land and naval
forces of the State, and may call out the
militia, repel invasions, suppress insurrec-
tions, and enforce the execution of the laws.
The next section, ten, declare's that the' " gov-
ernor shall take care that the laws be faithfully
executed." A law is a rule of action pre-
scribed by the supreme power of the State.
The legislature is the law-making power, if
it should be convened by your excellency, it
would now be the supreme and only law-
making department of the government
within constitutional limits. As there can-
not be two law-making powers in existence
at the same time, it is evident that the action
of the convention in the matter referred to
is nugatory and should be held too lie of no
avail. If the law as it now exists? is suffered
lo he overcome or overridden by the unlawful
assumptions of the convention, then are the
laws not executed in the State in a matter
vital to the best, interests of the citizen ?
The manner of preventing such aim outrage
upon the rights of the citizen is left to the
executive. It was never intended to be a
barren power that was not. to be wielded in
a crisis like the present. There is no authority
to redress the wrong after it is perpetrated.
The mischief once done is irreparable. There
is no tribunal to which the people can appeal
hut to you. You hold their rights and priv-
ileges in your keeping. You are a "trustee"
for them, and you have all the discretion and
latitude of power to prevent the wrong as
the nature of the case demands. The re-
jected voters may sue the judges of election,
but that will not prevent the consummation
of the outrage. Whatever the case requires,
yon have the power commensurate with the
necessity. You are lo "take care that the |
