North Carolina Newspapers

T.EMARBDF MB.-..TTKST02P, OF BERTIE CO:, J 03 tO S 5. 6 JSC OS A, CuSTEVtHX. Mb. SrEAtta: 3-nne of the ablest ma ttTMtWid. tbs State have recently taken the ground, thatl the Leg ulMwi may, by a mero rnqon the atmbtn-pMtat, pan a bill, by am dr which an unlimited jconvention may sailed bj bare majority vote 'of the peopje of North Carolina. If tfcia position be tenable k is time that the people of the State we w in k.rned oi it. I hasara the oooiectura ;bat not nan in a thousand, in this State, e ver beard 1 trf it before. And, air, that it it wrong, 1 tnmx tat, oven with my weak ability, I can show bevoad all doubt. Before the convention of 1835. our State constitution' was ailent throuehootr-m the node of its own amendment.. It contained no direction sxprees-oi. implied, on theaobjecL As the instrument , had been framed by the people tbpmgh thei agents, of coarse the earn people 'b b'4o right, by majority of votes, to altmeid -and ebange ilt at wilL TbeOenfreljAl wry; properly dis- , alter tof foraanf jfp;IawT andTtbere wai ' Meiivtlta6lawOTdiaths Constitution rsqai in anv other f Ota than a majority of the peo pie. There? wee, therefore, no other possible .nodi fit Amending the Constitution of the Ste, thaabr the mtiSrity erinoiple, adopted at tbat tisae. The sonvsntioa of 1835 introduced ink b Constitution two taodes So which it might . he amended; i The manner of call- i' faj that; contention can consequently, furnish "otrecdent tocutdeuenbw.' -TV V tb act of tha Assembly calling the oonven "ttotoof 1835 gar to tbat convention dttttra onnry'lWwft ont oomo sixteen subjects, In &ManL however, to four other anbieota, the envcatioo were not. left to exercise ther dia wdlon. Ther were directed and commanded to act. . First, it wii nacteo mat saw convention - should" adjust the Senate, pasla.,;, Seoonaiy -tb like aa to the Cminons' basiai Thirdly tha like aa to the Qualifications of Senate voters and fourthly, aa follows : That ths convene . titm. akoll urovid M what StaRMf "eAofl itfmturt be made to the Constitution, PJ the xtntm .iom th . exact JiuifnaitsUicisr- lag it myself." TJpotf ihU clause of tht aet ofl - Jo3 nothing nas Been wo vj ioe sawron - of the majority doctrine. Jt la stange that it shook, have been entirely overlooked, especial 'to fa -ren flenseM who have aeniyimed to aire in , their apecbea jjhn substance of tW jsct of 14 1 Sir, I undertake to aay, Obat arneo tins part 14 xfawaotis aeea emd 'properly, understood, tbe ' principle J bat tbarr u etill anothsr-mode of amtndjng.tht jConstitntion besidet-tthe' tvra' a.providd oy the convention, visnMhee into thin ' air.' The case in. a feWworde .iahis? The 1 JeopVdelegad 4o ( tbeooTention of 1835 the t vboU po wer $o do what they pleaeed in rngard ifv thfi modes , of amending the .Cooetitutien in " fotorei. They" not only? delegatedr th- io wer bur ? theyoommanded tta full exereiae. The OvnreauOD, tu wiwueuci w tuu yvuiuiwu, adopted the two modes contained in the Consti A tution. Now, air, if I know anything of lan gnage or law, those two affirmative modes ex ' elude -any and every other. Uchitio unius '' est ezclutio aUerius" The Supreme Court of North Carolina, tho final interpreter," would bo bound to adopt my-reaeoniug without any hesitation. Andair, if there ts aoy gentleman in the tic use who holds 'the contrary doctrine,! I would is glad to know tt. .Uere. Mr. fbU- Ups, of Orabge," informed Mr.- Winston, that he should rejlytO; himi : and should contend, firti. that the bo prelue Court cbbld not look at the act calling the sonventionin.obnstrtiine the amendments of 1835 ; -and - eeooodiv, that if tbev coald, the' clause of the act relied-on did not exclude the call of a convention by other modee than those provided, for in toe Consti'u tationri lam clad, sir, that U is tb gentle man from Orange who takes issue with me on this occasion. His knowledge of the law and Constitution is such, that if he falls to maintain bis position, it will be liecau'se the position cah- ' -not be maintained; " if Troy oould not be defended by Hector, it could, not be defepded at Before' I discuae the .points made- by my friend, let ue ask hint to turn bis mind to one or two points. -First : as he holds that the faoe of the Constitution is the only guide in construing it, let fcfm inform me, where he de- rivet the power for the .Legislature, by a major' , itv vote, to originate a bill whereby a majority of the people call a convention, xne uonstitu v lion of the State apeak- of legislative action. in regard to this matter, only in two places. My friend is obliged te admit that be can find nothing in the Constitution itaclf te warrant his oottiou. And. sir. aa he denies himself Ibo right to look ontside of the instrument, He I cannot move an jnoh. liven the precedent of 1835. (of no value when found) cannot be re sorted to by him. ,. What, additional vigor or , validity, I ask," can be given U the; proposed convention by an net of Assembly preceding it. The powers of the Legislature are well defined in the Consfiiation, and there' is not a word said therein of "their, oallins. a contention, ex ceps oy. a iwo tnirus vote. , sui it is saia tbat it is more proper' for the Legislature to, call it. This U a y teldiDg of the whole argument. The question is one- of constitutional power, and not of propriety. I under uke to say that if a convention of the people could assemble with' cut aa act of the Legislature, their action would' be valid as if aa act had preceded and au taorixed their assembling. Judge Gaston's expressedopnUon. wan, that the act of 1834 vaa do-more thao a proposition or a reeom (bendatifs." Suppose that -delegatea of the people wer to assemble in naieign, could.tney pet make proposition or recommendation for a convention t - And, sir, it is taking the whole qoaetion for granted, to say that it is necessary tw have an act of the . Legislature in order, lo direct WnVn, h re, and bow the elections are i be held. If the Legislature, by the Vote of a arejority, has no pov rr in the premises, then W:t-t addit 01 force is given to sueh a cou t ivibn by the act ? ' .. Again. Let me dire t the attention gf my frl d to the wo ding of th Constiiutido. 'Oue laue is as fo".low-: , Jro peri of th Constitution of rCiaState ehali be a' tared, nniexs a bill to alter the same shall' Lie been read three limes in each Iloui-e of the Oeceral Assembly, and agreed to by 'three-fifths of the whole number of members of each House respectively : Nor "shall any. alteration take, place until the said bill, so agrred to, shall have been published six months previous to a new election of membtrs to the General Assembly. If, after such puUicatian. the alteration propo sed by the preceding General Assembly shall be agreed to, ins the first session thereafter, by two thirds of the whole represcnution 4n oacti, ' Hoese of the General Assembly r after -the same ahall have been read three-time on. three- sevpV ral days in each House,' tfaeirtber said 'General Assemllj shall prescribe ' mode b which the - ameudment or amendments shall be Submitted to the qualified voters of the House of Commons tbroogbout the Sute ; and if, apbn comparing the votes given in the whole State, it shall ap pear thai a majority of the voters have-approved thereof, then, and not otherwise, the Same shall beeoioo a part of the Constitution." , Notice the terms employed in this clause. It ii. ae clearly as .words can make it, an assertion of one mode of amending the Constitution and a denial of . all otfier moo. It was adopted in the Convention on the Cth day. of July.- Now, - air, suppose that the -clause just quoted were the only provision contained in the Constitu tion providing for its own amendment Every man will admit that the Constitution could not be amended in any other way, and that the ma jurity principle contended for weald be clearly wrong.. - The only other reference to amendments oon taiaed in the Constitution is in the following words: " No Convention of tha peopleehall be eallad by the General Aawatbly, nnloos by rthf eon- enrrenee or two-ttnrds of all -tbev members of each Hones of tne Uenerai Assembly." r TbUaelanso was adopted in ths Convention of lc$i, twodays after Jtfto lormsr, powdoea it break in upon the general rule expressed in thejormer 7 Only so far as to form an excep tion. "The whole iratrament is to be construed together, and, tberatorje,vboth clauses nave to Oted.Nowsir; 1, 4elrsome gentleman to take Ibis UonSUtutioh ana anew me on m taos y .'Cn.additional mods of mending the Constitu t ondtiocuT lo folUand say, tbat the whole yXteXground is here oofered. TeoaHeDge any man- to look either In the Constitution orony where die, and find any valid argument, or evn sng r tt 1 gestion against my. posiuon aere w a pw rule expressed in the clearest possible language. To this general rule, jhere is ope expressed ex oenUon. iWiiranv man sav that the whole sub ject is not covered by the rule and ths exception 9 ask are. . t " . .'' t expressear story ana nmiw, in meir-woraa on the eon tructkn of Constitutions, both say tbat tbe . whole groond Is covered, and tbat no other exceDtion can be implied. We need not, bowever, jreeort to them, if language means any thing. Tbe point, to my mind, is too transpa rent to admit of any reasonable doubt. licre, sir, 1 might stop.- But my mend from Orange will reply to me presently, and I will froceed to meet the points presented by him. irst, can the Supreme Court take into consid eration ths act of 1834 in consuming the amend menta of 1R35. I aa'w that thev not onlv can but they are bound to do so. Nothing is plain er. . What relation did tbeconvention of 1835 sua tain towards the act which called them togeth er ? Most assuredly the same in every substan tial particular tbat tbe Legislature sustains to wards ths Sute constitution. - We are sworn not to violate the State constitution. The mem bertof that convention were sworn that they would not "either directly or indirectly evade or disregard ths duties enjoined or the limits axed to toe convention oy toe peopie oi .norm Carolina as set forth in the set of 1834 which .act was ratified by the people." Tbe State con stitution provides for tne origin ana existence or the Legislature, giving certain powers and withholding others. The act of 1834 did the same things with increased solicitude and strictness towards tbe convention of 1 835. The State constitution was the work of the people before' there was any Legislature. Ths act of 1834 was the work of the people : it called tbe convention into beine and save it certain well defined powers, excluding all others. In short, if svertbere was a deliberative body on earth, with a written instrument .controlling, direct ing and mastering their action, it was the con vention of Itwo. . Now, sit. nothing, is better established than that the Supreme Court of this State not only can look to tbe constitution tor every purpose m construing tbe act of the Legislature but tbey ars'tMuiuvely sworn and bound to do 'so. The act of 1834 was to tbe convention of 1835 constitution in every sense of the word. Tbey - r - . ' i -V i j ' - . were put memoersoi a legislature suoorainaio to that constitution. WilFthe gentleman from Orange admit that the convention was Urn ited by 4h not, as I have stated t I suppose that he win. LCan.be then deny so plain a conclusion .as 1 have drawn f Let him detect any flaw in the argument if he can. I might amplify it by ex amples and illustrations ; but 1 presume that I am understood, wniea is all tbat l desire. But -Sir; the action of the Convention of 135, as expressed in the amendments to the Consti tution, Kseif, absolutely compels tbe gentleman to look to the act of 1834, ia order to onderstaud this matter. The preamble to the amendments. which the pentleman admit is to be resorted to, with the amendments, states tbe fact that v,the act of 1834 was ratified ' by a majority of the people, and that, -by said vote, the people declared-their will that a Convention should be held, to consider of. the amendments propos ed.' What amendments ? The ones proposed. Where, proposed ? In the aot of 1834. Does not every man here see tbat tbe Convention here expressly declares, tbat tbey were out sub ordinate to tbe aot, and that the chart oi their power was contained in tbe act. They also de clared that they had made their amendments in accordance witb said acts. L-et any man take up the ' preamble, to which I refer, and read it carefully, and he will find that it de clares, in every part of it, the point tbat I oon tend for. The Supreme Court of the State has decided that, by a proper reference of one deed to another, the descriptions of the latter, are in. corporated into the former. Now, Sir, the Con vention of 1835 could not have made tbe case stronger, if tbey bad repeated seriatim in the preamble,-each and all of the provisions of tbe aot -of 1834. Yet, the gentleman admits, that the preamble is to be considered, but denies mat tne act, wnicn in-suoeiance it repeats, is to be looked at. i will not say more on tbis point. I have only to say tbat either the gentleman or myself is in a decided mistake about it. I take it, tbat the act of 1834 is to be looked atin construing ths amended constitution. What then is the construction of that clause of the aot, which says, "that the convention shall nrovide-in what manner amendments shall in future be mads to the constitution." They thall provide in tvAof manner. Ibis language is too plain- to admit of any simplification. The words smployed convey the meaning so clearly, that every effort to explain them will obscure them. . The words "in what manner" are as strong at least as ths words "tht manner" would have been. My friend is too good a philologist to deny this.1 It tne words "tbe manner" bad been osedy then it would have struck every one to enquire, why were not the words "a man ner" or "some mannsr" used. Why were the words future" used? At first view, they seem unnecessary. The answsr is plain. Be fore that, there was no constitutional provision for amending tne constitution, it was doubt ful bow to proceed en tbe subject ? Do not tbe words, ';in future," impliedly, if not expressly negative a repetition or tne mode tben pursued They knew! that tbey were then pursuing t constitutional mode of amendment or they, did not. If . they , did, then their language would have been, if they wished to retain that mode, that the convention should provide additional modes. If they did not, then, tt is clear, tbat they -wished in futare not to be perplexed -with doubts and that tbe convention of 1835 should substitute a plain course. Can any man r-ad tbe whole of this clause and say tbat tbe convention did not Have p'ower to negative the mode kben pursued? . Suppose that the convention of 1835 bad. ifltexpress terms, said that no other amend ment. should thereafter .be adopted than th two now contained in the instrument. Of course they had under tbis clause the power to do so: and such action, afterwards ratified by the peo- -i-.'u u -.... V i'u: r- u . L . t P, .IKIHUU lUI UBOU IMIU. X Utl U (Oftl 1 oontena ior m wis connexion. Take the clause ..altogether, and it is a direc tion to the CooveDtioa in.the broadest terms, to provide for trie wnou tuOject j Jutwe amend tnenlt; ; It was clearly. the meaning of thtt clause, that when the Convention had acted on it, no other mode than those provided by them could.be pursued. . The only' remaining. question is this? Did tbe Convention of 1835 exhaust their power ? Did tbey fully execute it T On examination, it will be found that tbey did, as to all tbe other numerous requirements of the act of 1834. My friend-from Orange knows too well that the Su preme Cettrt would here apply the maxim of law already quoted, "lnclutto unvui crt exclvsio alteriut."- If I 'wish a piece of work done. may say that my friend, Mr. Phillips, shall di reel the manner in which it shall be done. If hs gives directions, they are to be obeyed, al though he does not say in his orders that no other plan- shall be pursoed. It is, however, not necessary to argue this point, as it is we Settled as a rule of construction by every writer oh constitut'onal law. I say, therefore, that ths Supreme Court of north Carolina would decide that a Convention called by a majority of the people, vmder an act passed by a majority in the Legislature, would be unconstitutional. But it isoaid, Mr. Speaker, thai tbe clause of the Constitution giving tbe Legislature the pow er to nail a Convention is guarded in its terms and tbat two (birds are required, because the people did not wish to be troubled with meet ing in a Convention, whenever a majority of tbe Legislature might choose. Tbis explana i lion u gtvsn, to -anew tqai tnq-voovsatioa re quired a two thirds vols of the Legislature, while the majority principle, now contended for, was retained. , Gentlemen here find themselves in a dilemma. Thev cannot carry ont what tbef now contend for, without 'the vote of a ma ority of the Liegislature, ana yet tney say, iu n sobstantiallt the same state of facta tbe Con vention required two thirds. If Legislativo act adds any thing to the proposed majority Convention, we have no ngnt to pas it, except by a twolbirds vots. If it adds nothingiwbere is our right to pass it at an r aai sir, suppose tbat the Legislature had been permitted by a vote or a majority to can a uoneniion aim hbu troubled tbe people. Tbe first Convention could nave remeaiea tne evu. auu, sir, x wun w know if tbe doctrine now asserted, is not quite as troublesome. -According to that doctrine, a majority of tbe Legislature may, from session to session, keep the people voting on a conven tion without end. ! , Furthermore: The principle contended for is tbat an aot may be passed, by a majority of tbe Legislature. A bare majority of tbe mem bers present is all tbat ie required. Does this look like the work or intent of the Conven tion of 1 835? In both of the case provided by them, three fifths and two thirds ofths wAos number of members are required. A majority of the people who happen to vote is also said to be sufficient to call the Convention. A majori ty of the whole number is not required. Two bare majorities, one Legislative and one popu lar, each of the most meagre kind, are all that is neoessarv to create a body of men with the full power to overturn every part and parcel of our time honored Constitution. But one step further. . Gentleman have made lone and able speeches. Quoting tbe debates in the Convention to prove tbe correctness of this majority principle. I Now, Sir, Mr. Phillips is of the oninion hat inJconstruiBtr the constitution, the Supreme Court jean derive no aid from tbe debates, suppose that in this be is right, w nat, then, become of these long quotations with which we have been entertained r subtract what is 'furnished by the. debates and not a great dear is left. As 1 may not be misunderstood, bow ever, nor be thought to shrink from an Inspec tion of the proceedings of the convention of 1835, 1 will refer to them likewise in one in stance only I could quote a doxen, but one will do. And that one is not what Mr. A. or Mr. B. said, but what the Convention did. Tbe Con-3 vention assembled : The subject of future a mendment8 was referred to a committee of thirH teen, lbe report and the only one made by that committee was in the following words. "That whenever a majority of the whole num ber of each House of the General Assembly shall deem it necessary to alter or amend this constitution, they may propose such alterations or amendment to the people, and the Governor shall, by proclamation, lay the same before tbe people six months before the ensuing election for members of the General Assembly; and if the two llooses of the General Axsembly thus elected shall approve, as in tbe first instanoe, of the amendments proposed, the same shall be submitted to the people, for their ratification or rejection, and, if latSfied by a majority, shall be come a part of the constitution." This, I say, is all the plan ever reported by the committee. This plan which is more against the power of the majority than the plan which I now oppose, was rejected by a vote of 107 to 17, on the ground th&t it placed the Constitution of the State too much in the power of mere maj orities. Let any man read the debates, page 346 to 350. and be will See that I am right in every word I ray. The report of the Committee and the two plana adopted were the only plana considered fcjr the Convention. Instead of the plan of the com mittee, our present Legislative m?de, on motion of Mr. Meares, was adopted. Theoonventioo thtn supposed tbat no further action was to be taken on the subject. Had nothing more been done, every man must admit, aa I have said before, that the present proposed plan would be wrong Two days afterwards, however, Mr. Meares in troduced, ''as an additional safeguard against the efforts af a bare majority to uproot the fun damental principles of government" a pro post tion requiring a two-thirds vote to call a con ventiou. Read the proceedings of the conven tion, and you will find tbat it there was any sentiment settled in the minds of the members. t was that the constitution, which they were then settling, should not be altered by a mere njKjcrity. So much for tbis new doctrine ; a doctrine which goes a bow-sbot beyond anything tbat we have ever heard of before : a doctrine which drags down the constitution from its sa cred position and gives it no more authority or dignity than a mere act of the Legislature ; a doctrine which, in effect, abolishes the constitu tion which our fathers left us; a doctrine which will, in my opinion, meet the dcoided condem nation of the people of North Carolina. REMARKS OF MR. PHILLIPS. OF ORANGE, IS RIFLT TO TBS SIM ARKS OF UK. WINSTON. OF BtKTlE, ON THI StJBJXCT OF A CONVENTION. ' Mr. Spkaekr: I ask permission of tbe House to enter my dissent fiom the proposition of my friend from Bertie, (Mr. Winston) and to state tbe reasons why I hold it to be law in North Caro lina, that a convention to consider of alterations of the constitution may be called by the people. acting at tne suggestion ot a bare majority of the General Assembly. In order to establish the contrary, the gentle man has assumed that the constitution is to be construed by the terms of the Aot of 1834. which called the convention together. Merely an Act of Assembly, that instrument has generally been admitted to ex rt no power over the expressions oi the constitution. It was ad mitted that, as Mich, it could control not even the formal action of the convention of 1835, and therefore much more cannot affect tne re sults of that convention, when ratified bv the people, la brief, the proposition that tbe con stitution can be restrained or enlarged by any law pasKt-a by the General Assembly, is at war with every idea of a constitutional government, and is wholly indefensible. But it is said, that this Act of Assembly, having been voted upon by tbe people ; and, if not from that circum stance, then from being referred to in tbe pre amble to tbe amendments; has, from these facts, or at least, from one of them, derived an anoma lous power ; and so, although no part of the constitution, is nevertheless an organic docu ment, of a dignity equal to that of tbe constitu tion ; and hence, tbat it is according to all ana logies to say that tbe signification of tbe con stitution may be controlled by its meaning. The reply to these positions seems obvious. Tl . i I II - . i uuui p&rauei in tne case or one man's giving a power of attorney to another, to create a life estate in a certain tract of land. If the latter under this power creates a fee, and the principal subsequently ratifies that estate, the deed binds according to its terms as ratified, and not according to the language of the power of attorney. This case is no more clear, than the one which we are discussing, and the only advantage to be gained from citing it is, that it is one about which no excitement or prejudice exists ; one which therefore may be settled up on ite own merits, and the settlement of which necessarily involves the solution of the question before us. In arguing that the constitution of North Carolina is binding only so far as it pur sues the terms of the inetrument, under which the convention w is called, whether that instru ment be regarded as an Act of Assembly, or as a quasi constitutional document, it seems to me that the gentleman is trying to revive a rule of construction once thought applicable to the Con stitution of the - United States, a rule with re gard to that instrument at a very early day ex ploded and abandoned. Nobody contends now that the Constitution of tbe United States is in its various parte more or less binding, because more or less conformed to tbe purposes indica ted by tbe States, which convoked the conven tion tbat gave it birth. Nor is there any better ground for applying that rule to our consti tu tion. If tbe delegates exceeded their commis sion, that excess after ratification by the people is as much a part of the constitution as any and if there are any. omissions, these cannot be supplied by reference, to ths act . which : pre- serisea wnas taenia m done. Their written report of the result of their labors, when subse quently ratified by the people, was ail that was engraftedupon bur constitution and whether, as compared with tbeif commiisibn, defective or redundant, tfeay and tt all was so engrafted. Tbe number of its words cannot bo increased or diminisbed,.npr tbe fores of its meaning en larged or restrained by anj othe instrument which Is" not of a dignity at least equal to its own : I mean, by nothing unless found in the Constitution of. North Carolina, or the Consti tution and Laws of the United States. We have before us a written Constitution, tbe meaning of whose terms is to be discovered from dictionaries; or, when technical, from their usage in the sciences from which they hare been borrowed; and this is -my reply to the gentleman from ISertie, wben be urges that the preamble to tha autandments refers to the Act of 1834, and asks ! whether, in attempting to discover the direction in which the convention of 1835 went, we are not bound to consult the position of that' guiding star," by which the delegates profess their steps to hare been gui ded f The white sails of the ship are in view, and we should keep our eyes fixed upon them in order to learn tbe direction in which it is going ; the tracks of the caravaa are deep up on the sand before us, and to discover its a k ia a a . V course, we should toiiow these, ana not tne ravs of the star by which they believed them selves to be guided. Wo shall grossly deceive ourselves, if, in pursuing any object, we aban don the evidence of our senses, and fall upon some blind confidence in the results to be at tained by balancing probabilities, by conjec ture and bap-basard. And I do not know wby it is not to lose all tbe benefits of a written Constitution; if, with its pages before us, we desert the light of its clear provisions for the flitting fire-fltes of the contemporaneous debates, or of the enactments wh ch gave birth th MftMfihnM Ihak Framen it Pfe Thesa remarks are due to the cause of truth. and arc not compelled by any fear of the con sequences of the opposite doctrine upon tbe question at Issue. Upon tbe contrary, did 1 believe It right to embark upon the sea of con lecture, into which my friend has launched his boat, I might fish from its depths proofs alkk ! nii.--ii.l.Ai Alia nm An fl Aft pAnctitn-l USSW AJIO WUOtt UWUlUU VI VMS WIUVUUOU WHO hi fcVS tion is one not to be relied upon ; proofs, too, tbat are qaite as conclusive as any that he has arrayed npon ihe opposite side. I shall return to tJis hereafter, .but ask to make good that claim, in s?me degree, here, by calling atten tion to tbe manner in which the convention of 1835 waa constituted, with the view of show ing the bias under. which it acted towards the subject of its deliberations. Tbat convention was composed of 130 members. Of these, 78 cams from counties which had voted "No Con vention." Speaking of this circumstance, which bad been alluded to by a distinguished Eastern member, as M a melancholy fact which he could not pass by'," Judge Gaston said in $he convention, " He who enters upon a prescribed task, with a strong repugnance to it. Seldom performs it faithfully." That proposition scarcely needed for 'its establishment the sanc tion of his great name : and after all his labors to nullify Its effect upon the convention of 1835, its work bears obvious tracer of its operation. I will refer briefly to one in point to this dis cussion, and then pass on. By tbe loth sec tion of the Act of 1834, which apparently came in as an after thought every other duty of the proposed convention being prescribed in sec tion 13 tbe contention is directed to provide in what manner amendments shall in future be made to the Constitution. The reluctance of the convention, a majority of whose members were indisposed to even tbe pending changes. to anticipate and provide for further altera tions, is stamped upon the very first words of the clauses which point to such alterations. Tbey seem to intend a provision against all future changes, rather than a mode in which change may be effected. Both clauses com mence witb a negative. This circumstance be comes tbe more remarkable, in view of the stricture's with which the convention adhered to the form of expression used by tbe General Assembly in all the clauses which direct its course neon matters not discretionary. Here the whole structure of the guiding enactment is altered, a he Uenerai Assembly uses an af- p . i . t nrmauve expression ; tns convention a nega tive one. The Assembly indicates that a di rection shall be given ; the convention issues a prohibition. May I not ask, taking up the line of argument of my friend from Bertie, whether, in order to arrive at the meaning of tne expression agreed upon, between such a body and ths people who ratified them, we are to strain them etui further in order to extract a prohibitory faree even beyond the language of their obvious reluctance. Is not tbe contra ry the rule of sound sense and of sound law ? If a body of men, indisposed to act at all there in, is instructed to devise a method of amend ing the Constitution, the maxim of construe-; tion, applicable to their labors, is contra prof fereniem verba fortius, accipiuntur. The expres sions of tbe convention, if pressed at all, are to be pressed in a direction opposite to the basis of its members. Thus only can we fairly ar rive at me common intention ot the parties to that contract; I mean, ths convention which utttered, and the people who accepted it. 1 have introduced this allusion in order to show that it is not interest which determines me against pursuing the course taken bv tbe gentleman from, Bertie. Having shown this, f return to the -canon of criticism laid down above, and protest against any other construc tion than that afforded by an accurate conside ration of the expressions used in the Constitu-i tion. ! It is true that there is another view in which it may be contended tbat the details of the act of 1834 aie important, in considering the amend ments to the v oobtitution. it may be said that as tbe assent of tbe existing government is nec essary to any lawful change of government, it follows that any change in points not specified in sueb assent must be revolutionary. 1 reply tbat, as an act of Assembly, the material por tions of the law of 1834 are. that it trivea tha assent of the existing government to tbe oall of a Convention, and prescribes certain forms of ratifying tbe results of tbat Convention. ' Its other parts I mean the limitations on the now- : -x- -1 - v. em oi insi vonvention, so iarasthey are ema nations from the General Assembly, were ad mitted by Judge G -sum to be void. They de rive all their Effect lrom tha subsequent action of the people. Inasmuch, then, as any. limita tions upon the faction of Conventions by tbe Legislature vr void, it must be presumed that, even when the Legislature consents to a limited Convention.it tbeieby, for all legal, purpose, j consents to whatever tbe Convention : shall do that may be ratified by the people ; and there fore, that no changes of tbe Constitution made in a Convention, to whose calling the existing government hesfgiven its assent, are revolution ary. That these limitations were subsequently ratified by the people, and derive force there from, is a point2 without bearing upon the im mediate question, and, so far as it affects this investigational all, has already been considered. But, tbe gentleman urges that the act of 1834, being referred to in the preamble to tbe amend ments of 1835, thereby becomes a part of the Constitution, pon the principle which has led the Supremo Court to hold, that descriptions contained in a deed, referred to in a second deed, are to be considered as if contained in that se cond deed; the! old legal maxim being verba relata inesse videntur. There is a fatal inaccu racy about this argument, in so far as it assumes that tha preamble d the amendments is a part of those amendments ; whereas, it is a mere or dinance of the Convention passed by it in ooe dieoce to the direction of tbe act of 1834. The 13th section of that aot directs tbe Con van tint. to " adopt ordinance for carrying into effect the amendments which shall be made," dbc. oureiy, no one will contend tbat these ordinan. cec are amendments. If so, where was the use of specifying the exact length and breadth of each amendment that the Convention -.-,: ,. f.w.rnKi n the anmtitc or after, to thexercise of that power ny me Uiuu aiicustvn vw w-w f - . l i" 1 1 . tion of 1776. That refers to "an set of 4 the i other departments, is. thereby ueJf calling d.:.:k i ..;..,.,- n... k. -AntnA tW b aueh Convention. ! This IS nc to ftdoitt , 1 .-.u jQxi.iMiuta - -- I . .. . . . 1 1 . - . " . . . ! . . r .. Ar,r rK.r in. nfhw in.iriiieut Him v ' .u, -anil niia vf amanaea on crt a im ih Mt.t. tne DVvjvisioua oi tuai vi wau, .-.. -- T.r ; -j"- - ---- - --- --- l Bail eouvewMiu.j f ' There seems' to be a cleat'distinction between an act done by tb General Assembly, and an net done by the People, with the . consent of the General Aemb!y. High functions connected, . . I . .. . ....Ut..in..!a- i.H W.iT-i.a in niir nr.inii- Ixvr if e,iif listed to the rfiiresentativer of the people, at all. may properly have been so unier restrictions for securing a more than or- dinarv atiordach to unanimity in order to per- ! azreed to strike out. On motion, the vote was form' them ; at the same tim that to manifest j reconsidered, and the House refused to strike a consent by thee reorenentnive.- to aucu acts out Parliament are incorporated into the constitu tion 1 If n .t, where does be draw tbe distinc tion between tbat reference and the one before nsf If tbero bo any diffewneebetweenhe digafty of the prefli to tbe constitution of 1776, and that to tbe amendments of-1835. it seems to be in favor of tbe former. The former ap pears to be strictly a part of the constitution, whilst the latter is plainly only a portion of the On motioo, tl e rules were suspended sod ,L bill red a thud time. Mr. Smith offered bq amendment. After a short discussion the s-tgo of the bill Ay 60. Noes 38. The bill passed. (Mr. Leach, in bis remarks on thU bill, presented some statistics of an interesting character. His speech will be published.) Tbe bill concerning salaries and fees was ta ken up, on motion. The question before the House was an amendment, to strike out three thousand and insert twenty-five hundred. The House, voting at first under a misapprehension, formal action of the Convention designed to bring the proposed amendments before the peo ple; but no more a part of tbe constitution than are the proceedings about tbe organisation of the Convention, or its daily order of. business. Indeed, this point appears to be so obvious, tbat I must attribute it entirely to inadvertence tbat so sound a reasoner as the gentleman from Ber tie has laid any stress upon it for the purposes of his argument. - y think, tben. Mr. Speaker, that I have a right to conclude that tbe Act ot tso-ft cannot be appealed to in construing the terms of the amended constitution, hat even admitting, that tbe gentleman is correct in bringing to bear upon this subject tbe language of the statute which provided for the convention ef 1835, I suggest that there is much reason for complaint of his inconsisten cy. X be strength oi nis argument seems to me to be contained in this proposition : The Legis lature, among other things, directed the con tion of 1835 to order the method by which the constitution thereafter should be altered; the convention did make an express order to that effect; therefore, as according to the ancient maxim of law what is expressed puts an end to that which before was implied, the consti tution can be alter-ei in no other way. By that argument the gentleman arrives at the conclu sion that no convention, ebange tbe constitu tion can be called, except as is expressly pro vi ded in the amendments; and so, desires to change the proposition of his distinguished colleague (Mr. Outlaw) to call such a conven tion by tbe people, at the( suggestion ot a ma jority of the General Assembly, by inserting "two thirds of the General Assembly concur ring." I ask how any one, who beli- ve in the argument just stated, eaa consistently say that any convention, even one called by two-thirds of the General Assembly can change our con stitution? Where is it found that this conven- tin, whose existence is provided for, may take upon itself to change tbe constitution 7 lbe constitution provides only for its existence and does not define, or even allude to, its powers ; except indeed so far as the next clause, constru ing the instrument, by tbe rule of my friend from Bertie, exoludes trom those powers that ot changing the constitution. For it says "No part of this constitution shall be changed, ex cept by what is known as the legislative mode. let tbe gentleman admits that a convention called by two thirds of tbe General Assemby may alter our constitution ; but how he can claim to be consistent in making this admis sion, I confess myself unable to comprehend. Surely, if the insertion of one methed of calling convention does, as be asserts, exclude all A number of amendments were rejected. An ameudment offered by Mr. Uargan, pro posing toincrease the salaries of none but the Governor, Treasurer and Clerk, was adopted by 72 ayes to 31 noes. The bill was laid on the table. Mr. Singeltay offered a substitute. A num ber of amendments were offered and rejected. The House took a reoess without coming to a vote. AFTERNOON SESSION. 3 o'clock. The discussion on the bill concerning salaries and fees continued. Mr. W hi taker offered an amendment increasing the Secretary's salary. Mr. Mordecai said he had always been against increasing officers' salaries, but since there was a disposition to increase those salaries, he would change his course. He thought the Sec retary. who had served tbe otate tor lorty years and worn himself out in that service i i i r: . .1 Wa8 particularly wortuy ui lucnuru vouipviina- and, nnless it was done, ne sir. ) wouiu gainst the bill altogether. J. Barnes moved to postpone tne Mil ndefinitely. The ayes and noes demanded. Aves 26. Noes 57. On Mr. v bi taker's amend ment, tbe ayes and noes were demanded. Ayes 22. Noes 91. Mr. Winston offered an amend ment, "that those officers shall receive no oth er compensation whatsoever." Mr. Singelta ry objected, tbat it cot off the fees of those of ficers. Mr. Winston explained and demanded tbe ayes-and noes. . Ayes 94. Noes 20. On the passage of tbe bill, as amended, the ayes and noee were demanded.. Ayet 50. Noes 43. The bill passed its second reading. ' On motion of Mr. Baxter, the rules were suspend ed and the bill put on its final reading. Mr. Patterson offered an amendment striking out the words, "or clerks." which was adopted. The bill passed its third and last reading. ; On motion of Mr. Humphrey, a bill for the construction of a railroad from tbe town f Beaufort to Fayetteville was taken up. An a mendaient offered by Mr. Humphrey, striking out eertain sections, was adopted. The bill pass it aonnd reading. Ml nn m,.t;ftn nf Me. T. II Williams, the bill etion, gtveflHJr u. v.t. .:!-..:-. ' ..... 1 hat great source of iegislativeT" " . , ,.of4:w U Y IWI j VUUW WWag Mr. Butter offered substitute. A discus sion arose, during which the bourmrrired fur taking a recess. . . . niton ..lll.in tltll GAA. .1 Dtiuytiuu v a liazio a v r ra'.na .nlw th Kt. I""' ::rr ... Mr. . I..,, n ...... I 1 n m i. I. .I,,. A...M,n Li when performed by the Peupl-, si purtof whose ordinary legislation ucder ou'r frn..s of goern meut such acta are, there may be very good reason why no depariurefiom the common rules of proceeding should '"be demanded. There seems to le nu color for contending that provis ions restrictive of the former action compre hend as well the Utter. Ah bearing somewhtt upon this p.inr, I cite the 5th section of the De claration of HiSits. which userts that "all power ot suspending laws, or the execution of laws by any authority, without consent of the representatives of the people, &s , ought not to be exercised :'" which implies that there exists somewhere among the departments of our gov ernment a power to suspend laws, &o.: a power. although such an one as ought not to be exer cised without consent, &c. This section is aim ed at the powers in our system of government, wherever rested or left, that are analogous to the powers exerted over our Colonial Legisla tion by the King:! exerted, too, in England, with out question in its early history, but in later timet, onlv under bad trovernmei.r. It seems to , me a much too uarrow con tion to suppose that it rest utive in .North Carolina consideration which cone 1 in England finds! its correspondent, in North Carolina in the Governor. , In England the King U the source of all political power. The enacting clauses of the old statutes show that he alone was the legislative power, and I believe tbe former continues much the same at tbe pre sent day. It was in virtue of this transcendent power tbat be claimed that right whose exer- else without consent, etc.. is stigmatised in tne section before us. Its exercise in England was I at all times strictly in accordance witn the theo ry of the Constitution, but at length ceased on der the continued encroachments of the growing freedom of the subject. It may bavebeen thought by those who framed this section that it would find its appropriate object in the.new ly created Executive. It may be that from an inootitiideration, which,, however, I will not at tribute to them, they concluded that the English crown was represented iu the new form of gov ernment by the; Governor. Time has taught us better, lbe history of. the principle incorpor ted, and the lmgUjage of the section. i wider scope. That iir. power which, in hnland, is represented by the King, fio'ls its parallel with us in the People. And, if it be true that, ia the , language used above, this section is aimed at those powers amongst us thatare analogous to the King's in other methods of doing it, then, a fortiori the insertion of one method of amending the con stitution, when declared to be exclusive of all others, must be held to exclude them, no matter how allowable theretofore. Nor can it bo urged that tbe word convention necessarily imports a body wbose labors are conversant with changes of the Sute Constitution. ' Our own history shows the contrary. They are relied upon as tests of the popular will upon all extraordinary occasions of sufficient solemnity. A convention brought JMorth Carolina into tbe Union, and the year 1850 is not so far distant from the present that we can forest tbat it is extensive ly relied upon as the proper means of carrying it out. If, then, conventions are parts of our political machinery, having other objects than such as concern our State Constitution, those who insist that tbe sort of convention specified in our constitution is exclusive of all others, are involved in gross inconsistency wben tbey al low that that convention may intermeddle with the constitution. tTm the more particular in calling attention' to the consequences of this doctrine, because it is the cardinal error of this great heresy against popular rights, f Tbe tui tion ia not peculiar to tbe gentleman from Ber-j tie, but is common to all who deny tbat a con vention may be called by the people acting at the suggestion of a majority of tbe General As sembly. They all admit that a convention called upon the two-thirds principle may effects changes in the constitution ; and yet, with this admission upon their lips, do not blush at de-V nouncing as revolutionary those who, on the principle that they admit, maintain the position now occupied by myself. land lucid argument of the learned gentleman No such inconsistency's attributable to ns. f.from Bertie. . Startine with that fundamental nrinoinle of our U England, then ny intermei lling, tha small est, and therefore any irreater, by the People in legislation without consent of their repreaenta tives is denied, but with such consent is imj pliedly affirmed. And I think it clear that tb section recognixeaactioo by the General Assem bly, and action by some other power with con sent ot theueiierai Assembly, as essentiallv di-tl verse, although equally allowable. 1 conclude that, being different, tbe formal regulation of the former can by no means be construed to be as well a regulation of the latter. Nor need it be added that the word law. in this section ex tends to constitutional provisions, which are our supreme laws, and so of all our legislation that only which can fairly be compared with Acts of Parliament the suspension of which suggested this 5th section ; these latter being the eu- reiue and over riding laws of Great Britain. 1 sum up what 1 have sail into the result : ha: the right of the people to call a conven tion, with' the concurrence of a majority of the General Assembly, is aeonsti .ationa! right, because not expressly or by necessary implica tion inhibited; and is not revolutionary, be cause effected, with the concurrence of the ex isting government: ' That Legislators may differ about the txpe diency of calling a convention by the people at the suggestion of a majority Vf tRe -General As sembly, I can very well understand. Different degrees of confidence in the people may very well account for this disagreement. Buthaw any good lawyer can assert that such a call ia unconstitutional Ijio notynderstad ; not even now, sir, that 1 nave had the aid of the strong 4 liberty, That all power not aranted in our or ganic law remains with the people, and bearing in our hands, as a lamp, that great rule of con struction in all American Constitutions, that the people are not included-in any restraining provisions, unless referred to expressly, or by a necessary implication, our way is equally short and clear.- The constitution savs "No Con. vention shall be called by the General Assembly J unless," to. That general w rds in statutes dot vJI c r . a I not oiuu too sovereign, is a maxim OI construc tion pervading tbe whole body of tbe Law. The rule is not merely technical. It has good sense in it ; and whatever the measure of that good sense may bo, it is increased in its application to tbe position that no general expressions are derogatory to the rights of tbe people ; bow much more, Sir, when, as here, the restraint is in terms aimed at" an individual, and, as regards the people, a subordinate department of the go vernment. The provision is, as it were, a piece superadded in order to regdlate another portion of the same machinery, and is not intended to apply to the hand of tbe operative which, from STATE LEGISLATURE. stoo. 4- -I ' r . m .. .1 . . . A .;. i . ll iin viuico way cowe, sir, wncH 11 will DC a received; canon oi constitutional construction that tbe powers of the people must yield to re kstraints by ordinary implication.' I bone tha uhose times are far distant, for they will be bad ItimeSjj sor ourselves, there is groond for con SENATE. , FaiDAT, Feb. 9, 1855. The bill hi relation to the Fayetteville and Warsaw Plank Road Company was read the third time and passed. The bill to incorporate the Moore and Mont gomery Plank Road Company was passed the third time by Ayes 13 to Noes 20. The unfinished business of yesterday tbe revenue bill -was taken np and discussed. The Senate receded from its disagreement to the House bill for the completion of the xortn AJaroiina nauroad. The Senate then took recess. ;. AFTERNOON SESSION. A number of private bQIs a'nd engrossed bills from the House of Commons were read. Tbe Senate then resumed the ' consideration - r .i -v .!,.... . . wi me revenue -urn. After oeinz amended in Niam? SESSION. The House met at 7 o'clock. Tbe following bills, passed their final read- A resolution concerning furniture for the Executive Mansion.-' A bill concerning tbe County seat of Madison. A slight discnaaionyroee between Messrs. Vance and Yancy,"Tie bill passed its second reading. Mr. Winstoa said if t Salary bill were taken from the Ub&Vnc could, ix it in five minutes, and moved to take it up. (Laughter.) Motion refused. "' Mr. Sharpe moved to suspend the rules and take up a bill for the establishment of Graham Co. Refused. A bill for the establishment of tbe town of Whitehall A bill concerning public. printing. (A sub stitute from the Senate committee was read. A gool deal of discussion arose on a motion by Mr. Mann to strike out all that part concern ing the election, of a public printer. Tbe ayes were demanded. Ayes 42, Noes 42. Tbe chair decided in the negative.) Mr. Mann offered another amendment. The ayes and noes were demanded. Ayes 45, Noes 40 ; amendment adopted. Mr. Cook moved a reconsideration. Refused. On motion of Mr. Singeltary, the bill was put on its final reading and passed. A resolution in favor of B. F. Moore and Aa B'gg8 was laid on the table, on motion of Mr. S. A. William s. A bill authorising tbe Literary Board to loan a sum of money to tbe Richmond High School of Laorinbnrg. Amended and passed three readings. ' .. A message from the Senate was read. The Senate revised to accept, the resolution conoer- I ping the election ot commissioners for the Lu-N-aatie Asvlum. and an amendment to the bill time to time, adjusts that machinery, putting gseveral particular .iKj bill jtassedr it second Mr. Jones introduced a resolution nrovidin . t u:-- ..,, ,.. . w uwuiug uiut sraaunis, wuksm was adopted: The bill to improve the navigation of the Roanoke -River was read the third time and passed, by Ayea 25, Noes 15. The bill to provide for the construction and repairs of the nublio roads wn reA th hi,A jgratoiation that W live too near to the days Of time and passed. ft fthe Revolution, and the origin of our free insti-1 Thsioiut resolution from the nnuaa nf f!nm. Rtntions, to stand in danger of its prevalency in I mons, appointing nine directors of the Lunatic four generation. And 1 take occasion here to lAsylum. was rejected, i protest against its being suggested as a rule that may be relied upon amount as for anv purpose. No one can say whither it may lead," or how bitter, though remote, mav be the con-' euucnc ui iw lutrouucnon into ueoaea anon -ur Constitution. I But my friend from Bertie says that if a convention may no caned by tbe people through the medium of a majority of the General As sembly, he does not see why any concurrence of the General. Assembly is needed. I have already said that some concurrence of the ex isting government ie necessary in order to pre vent the change effected by tbe people from being revolutionary That ie the turning point of the decision in Dorr' case. I need not elab orate that point here. r But I maybe permitted to say that my understanding of that decision of the Supreme Court of the United States is that the right of the people to change their government is a revolutionary right, wben exer cised without tbe consent of tbe existing gov ernment; but when exercised with that con sent, is a legal rights 'It seems to me tbat thee is some confounding of the particular function exercised by the Legislature in convoking a convention, and tbat other function of render ing sncb a convention legal amongst those who contend tbat we "who allow to borcalled by the people, at the suggestion of M Jfc Atnta :,P .L PI 1 O OSB I NIGHT SESSION. The Senate was mostly ensraired on nrin. ills and bills of a local nature. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Fainar, Feb., 9tb 1855. The House met at the usual hour. Mr. Cofield introduced a bill to incorporate the Carolina Hotel co in Fayetteville. On no tion, the rules were suspended, and" tbe bill pass ed iu final reading. Mr. J.G. Bynum, a bill from the joint select committee on Club-foot and Harlow creek ca nal, for tbe improvement of said eanal Mr. Cansler from the committee on Internal Improvement reported favorably on a bill to incorporate the Fayetteville and Raleigh plank -road co. Mr. Bryson presented a resolution in-favor of Andrew Cope. Message from the Senate. The Senate trans mitted a resolution in favor of W. H. Winder, with an amendment, in which the-concurrence of the House was asked. On an explanation from Mr. Jenkins, the House objected to the a mendment. Mr. W'augh from tbe committee on Proposi tions and Grievances presented r . n Vl" wo motion or air. Sutton, the report '.. I ... Ll . -- uia&c, ucu we wnoic matter was to be left a til sea by nermittintr tha- Convention ta fFt kn oonstitntion by prdioaaces f If tbe ordinance is no part of the oonstitntion then, assuredly the act refsrred to therein ia none. To make uus matter suulsarer, 1st me oall the gtntle tvfpLi.n. a majontyof the GeuerU Assembly, are thsr-l was ordered to be printed, - , ' . mm vwn, vmitm m oonven-f vea ior faung ap tne z tu wwu, paw IBU nve ItS assent. tO each .--. 1 nn nf tha a-u-Aial n-liM . TV-. fcJ ffectoBnt wroly, if there bo amo'ng cordingirn';nd WU'M lh athw dMi.ta .r ..-. . - !"l . . . . . r . 1 . n Z 7 ii pnwieBi a power I r. v.ia. A-each addressed the House on tha to call convention, it cannot aaa thL i.. f.K;. kih n ... :"r:."e -on tu General AmWy, by titbit. assenbsfoTe inoss wsj dsniiiSsdr Ayis58 Jfos 11 incorporating the Wilmington Savinge Bank. Amendments to the Fayetteville and Centre plankroad bill and the Yadkin Navigation co. were concurred in by the House. On motion of Mr. Shepherd, tha resolution in favor of Messrs. Moore and Biggs was taken from the table. -Mr.'&fA. Williams moved to strike out $1,500 and insert $1,000. Lost. On the passage of the bill, the ayes and noee were demanded. Ayes 40. Noes 31. The bill pass ed ia second and third readings. ENoaossxn Bills raoit u Sxhatx. A bill to incorporate the town of Madison in Rockingham co. i j A bill to change the names of the police mag istrates of Fayetteville and Wilmington to May or. A bill to incorporate the Silver mining co. in Davidson eo. A bill for the better regulation of tbe town of Hillsboro. . The above bills passed three readings. A bill to incorporate tbe Newborn Mutual Insurance eo. Passed.. A bill to ebange-the name of Jamestown, in the county of Martin, to Jamesville. Passed. A bill authorising the chief engrossing clerk to employ whatever assistance he may requiro produced some discussion. Amended and pas- ( ATesolotion In favor of W. A. W inborn. A2 mended and passed. A resolution in favor of JohaB. Debnam pro duced some discussion, and, on motion, was laid on the table. ,. s -; The Uoase adjourned. SENATE. . ..C . ' . Satckdat, Feb. 10, 185$. The bill to prevent tbs further trading with slaves in Mecklenburg and ' Northampton was read the third time and passed. On motion of Mr. Mousey, tbe vote by which the bill to incorporate tbe Moore and Montgom ery Plank Road was rejected, was reconsidered, and ths bill passed its third reading, by ayes 18, noes 14. Mr. Biggs introduced a bill in relation to the , Superior Court of Law in Tyrrell county, which was read three times and passed. . The resolution concerning the Farmer's Bank of Elisabeth City was read tbe second time and laid on the table. ' The bill to alter the lias between tbe coun ties of Buncombe and Madison was read and rejected. The Senate then took op tbe bill concerning the revenue. AU tbe amendments made on the second rea ding were stricken out, and the bill passed its third reading..' Several private bills were read and passed. The Senats took a recess. AFTERNOON SESSION. Ths bill to incorporate the Lexingfotr anl North-western Railroad company was. zead the second time and rejected. Tbe bill to provide for the com pie tie of a sur vey for a railroad west from tbs French Broad valley, by the Duck Town Copper Mines, was read tbe third time and passed. Tbs bill to limit the term of tbs Chairman of Scli ed en to indj i mic -1 the anc 1 bill stiti on sun tion law l Mori oft to a cerd oft and amd sion pas 3 1 sold teen teen pre tab! Nod vai ted A, taU Cod pos till vaii hi an and! bill A Bad ha der . bill reel ed. on and and upit tne lot. ' fiirl Bad sue his nel, in a I Bad tba by ThJ He .slid dre Sb ruH II. in q land Mr pod and ter qutf tes me IlSH - Th No! '..i Die mil - ter :. wh leot in M t Si P. te ii p saf bi G ta' ii e of