that convention and ours was in the fact that
there was no ambiguity in the terms of the
act of assembly providing for its exercise.
The act directed that they should submit the
constitution either to those whom the con-
vention might authorize to vote for members
of the legislature, or upon the ratification of
the constitution. But this clause of the act
of assembly cannot, from the whole tenor of
your argument, make any distinction be-
tween the cases; for, certainly, I do not un-
derstand you as in any respect admitting that
had our act of assembly, in terms ever so
unequivocal, prescribed a new oath for the
voters, and made provision for the soldier's
vote, or had explicitly authorized the con-
vention to do so, that the constitutional pro-
visions could be put aside by such legislation.
Nor was any peculiar power claimed by the
Virginia convention on such ground; on the
contrary, Mr. Thompson, one of the most
prominent debaters in behalf of the power
claimed, in effect repudiated such a deriva-
tive authority,
Referring to that clause of the act, he said,
"the whole object of this provision was to
declare what it was supererogatory to affirm,
that if it should be the pleasure of this body
to designate the persons to whom our work
should be submitted we had the power to do so,
and in the event of our silence on this sub-
ject, the sheriffs should on question of ratifi-
cation or rejection take the votes of all quali-
fied under the new constitution." Nor
were those who opposed the exercise of the
power less confident in their denunciation of
the measure as a usurpation than yourself.
They pursued the same line of argument.
Mr. Nicholas, who was one of these oppo-
nents, after declaring that as a general prin-
ciple there were two ways by which a gov-
ernment could be changed—the one b', revo-
lution, and the other by those from whom
the powers of government are derived, agree-
ing to modify its existing institutions, says :
"If it be admitted that the change in the
government can only bemade with the assent
of those who possess the power, the reference
of the question to those not now entitled to
vote would present a curious political anom-
aly, In the first place, on aquestion whether
the constitution is to be adopted, we are to
anticipate that it will be so adopted, and
give the decision to those who possess no po-
litical power until after the event takes place,
instead of obtaining the assent of those in
whose hands the power of government is,
we are to unite in the decision numerous
classes who constitute no part of the actual
government."
He then puts the case of the majority of
the freeholders voting one way, and of the
new voters the other, and in which case the
form of government, instead of being altered
with the assent of the existing authorities,
would be so altered in defiance of them. |
Mr. Randolph, another opponent of the
proposed submission of the constitution to
those who were not allowed to vote under
the existing one, denounces the proposition
still more emphatically. He says :
"1 consider this as the greatest question
which has been presented to this body since
it assembled. Is it not obvious that if the
commonwealth consists of freeholders and
non-freeholders, and the non-freeholders are
—as we are told they are—the most numerous
of the two, that the worst of constitutions
might have been imposed upon the common-
wealth by those who, in the language of a
gentleman on this floor, are oat of the con-
stitution, against the voice of every free-
bolder in the county? Sir, what sort of a
tribunal do you elect when you admit those
who have no part or lot in our acts to pass
judgment upon them? Sir, you might as
well refer the constitution to the people of
Ohio, or the people of Kentucky, or, I will
go further, to the people of Japan. Yes,
sir, they have just as good a right to decide
upon it."
Mr. Randolph then moved the following
resolution:
" Resolved, That the amended constitu-
tion adopted by this convention be submitted
on the respective election days in the month
of April next to the persons qualified to vote
under the existing constitution for members of
the general assembly."
The ayes and nays wore taken upon the
adoption of the resolution, and it was defeated
by a vote of more than two to one. The
new constitution was submitted to voters
who were not qualified under the existing one,
and among those voting with the majority
were Ex-President Madison, Chief Justice
Marshall, Chapman Johnson, Philip P. Bar-
hour, and others of scarcely inferior celeb-
rity.
Now, my dear sir, whatever opinion you
may still entertain of the proceeding of our
convention, I hope and think that with such
a precedent before us you will no longer press
me to interpose the executive arm to arrest it
upon the ground of its being a palpable vio-
lation of constitutional rights, "having no
parallel in our State or any other."
In regard to the query propounded by one
of your judges of election, and mentioned in
your postscript, as to whether I would refuse
to count the votes of a district where the
judges did not certify that the oath required
by the convention had been administered, 1
would say, what yon are, of course, aware
of, that by another clause in the constitution
proposed I am expressly enjoined not to count
such votes. That for the reasons already
given I hold myself bound by that require-
ment, and were I to disregard it, it would
be as effectually to annul the action of the
convention as if I had acceded to your re- |
