pation convention assembled here; and but for the propositions mooted in that assembly, I have not the slightest doubt that most of the members of this convention would have been warmly in favor of specific amendments. I would ask gentlemen, if they believed, prior to the assembling of that convention, that specific amendments were wise and expedient, right and proper, what has taken place, so fearful in its aspect, to cause this almost universal change of sentiment? If this principle was right before, how can it be wrong now? If it was true before, how can it be false now? If it was safe and secure before, what has taken place to render it unsafe and dangerous in its character now? Why, sir, there was nothing in the proceedings of that convention which should have led gentlemen to adopt this singular change of sentiment. There were only two propositions that convention proposed to have engrafted upon the constitution-one, "the absolute prohibition of the importation of any more slaves to Kentucky" the other, "the complete power in the people of Kentucky to enforce, and to perfect, in or under the new constitution, a system of gradual prospective emancipation." These were the objects the principles which were contended for; and because the emancipationists were in favor of specific amendments, or as some termed it," an open clause" in the constitution by which the people might amend or alter it by a bare majority of their number, the hue and cry was posted over the whole state, as though it were on the wings of the wind, that the institution of slavery would be in danger. Thus gentlemen were induced to turn ronnd and oppose a principle right in itself, and which commended itself to their better understandings, merely through fear of an imaginary evil. Now, sir, I would ask, can we not provide for this specific mode of amending the constitution, and yet throw as strong a safe-guard, as certain guaranties, around the institution, by this, as by any other means? I think we can; and that we can do it much better by this plan than we can either by the mode suggested by the gentleman from Madison, or by that suggested by the committee. I propose to guard against any emancipation, without the consent of the owner, or without full compensation, and the removal of the eman cipated slaves from the state. And that that provision of the constitution, as well as the provision that secures to every man the enjoyment of all his property, and that provides it shall not be taken, even for public purposes, without compensation first paid to him, shall never be changed, without the concurrence of two thirds of the members of the legislature, at two sessions, and a majority of all the qualified electors of the state at two elections. Will not this place the institution on safe ground, and beyond danger? The gentleman says, that if you allow the constitution to be amended by any proposition originating with the legislature, there will be so many propositions for a change that it will be necessary, by and bye, to have a digest of the constitution. Have not most of the states in the union power to amend their constitutions in this mode? Certainly they have; and even in the constitution of the United States, there is a provision for the amending of that instrument by the action of congress, with the concurrence of three fourths of the states. That instrument has been amended; and does he now require a digest to determine what is the constitution of the United States? Sir, it is true, there have been but few amendments adopted, and this proves the gentleman's fears are without foundation, and I conceive the gentleman is perfectly able to find them without a digest. The same principle which I here suggest has prevailed in twenty three out of the thirty states of this union, and, sir Mr. TURNER. I beg to inform the gentleman that it is disputed even now what the constitution of the United States is. This specific amendment system has been so loosly carried into effect that the Supreme Court of the United States have doubted whether two important amendments passed by congress are parts of that constitution. Mr. GRAY. The gentleman may doubt any thing he pleases; he may say that the supreme court of the United States may have a doubt about these amendments, but I never have heard any doubt as to what were the amendments of the constitution of the United States. Some have entertained doubts about portions of our present constitution, and in relation to the mode of amending it. The Supreme Court of the State of Kentucky may entertain similar doubts about the amendments we are about to make here in the constitution of the state. The gentleman may also doubt whether these amend ments are parts of the constitution or not; but sir, there can be no more doubt about amendments made in the way I propose, than there can be about those made in any other way; and I will say more, that every slave state in this Union, except Virginia and Kentucky, has adopted this specific mode of amending their constitutions. Is there any reason then on the score of danger to the institution of slavery, to prevent us from adopting a similar provision? Did the gentleman ever hear of a single slave state that had adopted this mode, abandoning it in revising their constitutions? In some of the states it was adopted as early as 1776, and continued to be approved of to the present time. Have they not all stood by it to the present time? We find, sir, that wherever this mode has been adopted and tried, it has given universal satisfaction. Does not experience teach us that it is a practicable, a proper mode, and that it is suited to the prosperity, the liberty, the happiness, of our citizens, and that it is peculiarly adapted to the genius of our institutions? It seems to me that gentle. men allow their fears to carry them away without reason. Now sir, according to the plan which I propose, I contend that the institution of slavery or any other institution, is safer than when you throw the whole constitution-the entire machinery of government-open to the revision and amendment of a convention like this. Here we are voting and managing to get things to suit us, and when we have done all this, I ask you if the people can take one part of this new constitution which they may approve, and re jeet that which they disapprove? No sir. They fof the constitution that fails to secure the rights must take it as a whole, as we have made it, of the people, to answer the ends and purposes or not at all. But by the mode of specific for which it was instituted; any portion that amendments, you may take it section by section, experience points out the necessity of chang and in this way have it ratified by the people. ing," may be changed by the legislature and the Is not this a matter highly desirable? Here proposed alteration, singly and separately, subthere can be no combination among the people initted to the investigation and consideration of for any ulterior political purpose, but they take the people, for their ratification or rejection. each proposition by itself. They weigh and This can be done too without that feverish exconsider it deliberately and calmly, and it citement, that restless anxiety, that tumult and stands or falls, according as it receives their ap-violence, that commotion and agitation, that inprobation or disapprobation. But sir, is that variably, unavoidably and necessarily attends the case now? When the call of a convention the putting to hazard; the subversion and overis desired, every man who has an objection to any throw of the fundamental rules and principles particular part of the constitution, combines and that secure the citizens in the enjoyment of their co-operates with every other man who has an ob- inappreciable and inviolable rights and privijection to any other part. And thus the chances leges, for the preservation of which civil governof calling a convention are multiplied in propor-ments are founded and instituted. tion to the various articles or sections that individuals may desire to have changed. At the same time that no one proposition for a change could secure a majority of the voters by this combination of various subjects, you involve the state in the agitation, excitement, hazard, and expense of calling a convention, and throwing the whole fundamental law in their hands, to be altered, modified, or abolished, as they in their wisdom or folly may think proper. Is this wise, is it prudent, is it good policy? Our experience here amply proves, that the people cannot tell what changes will be made by a convention, for we have to take things just as we can get them; and there are propositions thrown in, and amendments carried, that were never spoken of before the people, or even dreamed of by them; and we have to take these amendments and propositions, just as a majority of this body may shape them. And, sir, when they are submitted to the people, it is not unlikely that there may be a vast deal in the constitution which they would reject, if each part could be taken separately. There may, sir, be many provisions in this constitution that the people will not approve of. And how are you to remedy the evil? Will you call another convention? Will you again unsettle the whole state, and come here to revise and amend, to rescind and curtail your own handiwork for the last three months? Will you again call a convention, at the cost and expense of forty or fifty thousand dollars, have the ship of state again cut loose from her moorings, and cast upon the boisterous and foaming sea of political excitement and agitation? The fear of this ought, sir, to deter gentlemen from refusing to engraft such a provision as I have proposed upon the constitution. If gentlemen will only take up the question and examine it under the dictates of reason and past experience, I feel satisfied they will no longer hesitate in coming to the conclusion that a specific mode of amendment ought to be provided in some shape or other. I am not wedded to the particular phraseology of the amendment. If any better can be suggested that will secure the specific mode and guard the rights of property, I am willing to support it. I am as much in favor of continuing and protecting our slave institutions as any gentleman. And if there be any other plan by which it can be more surely guarded I would be willing to adopt it. By this mode any portion Does not experience teach us that this is right and proper-that it is safe, judicious, and wise and that no evil can result from it? Then I beg of gentlemen to suffer their reason to operate; let them pass over those ghosts of emancipation which they appear so much to dread; let them discard these imaginary evils; let reason resume the throne; let them look at this matter in its true light; and if they will do this, I am persuaded they will at once come to the conclusion with me, that the mode of specific amendments is the very best that can be adopted. There is also great economy in this plan. Many gentlemen of this body are rigid and strict economists. I trust I shall have the aid and co-operation of all such. Economy is a matter of great moment and in a government of the people, like ours, entitled to due weight and consideration. It should have due regard and attention, both in private and public affairs. Without it in private affairs, estates the most magnificent, and fortunes the most princely, are soon dissipated and squandered, and utter ruin, bankruptcy, and distress, are brought upon individuals and families. Without it in public affairs, the highest prosperity and greatest happiness are soon lost, and insolvency, repudiation, and disgrace are fastened upon the state and government. This proposition will enable the people, whenever they desire it, to change, alter, or modify any portion of their fundamental law, without cost or expense. It is only necessary for the legislature to propose the amendment, and submit it to be voted upon by the people, at the general elections. And, sir, I think the question of slavery, and the security of all other property, is guarded there in as ample a manner as any gentleman can desire. The proposition I make is one that I contended for before my constituents at home, and I believe it meets their approbation. But, sir, I am willing to compromise that matter, if you will only give us some way of reaching the evils which we may have incorporated in our constitution, without the trouble, expense, and agitation of a convention. Sir, we have launched out into an unknown sea. We have adopted some features and principles in this constitution that are new and untried with the people of Kentucky. We know not how they will operate. Experience may point out the necessity of their change or modification. Yet no power is reserved to the people; no mode nessed? We should, sir, have had no excitement, no expense, no convention, and very probably a much better constitution than we will have when all our labors have terminated here. If then, sound policy, common sense, and a proper regard for economy, require it-if reason supports and justifies it-if authority the most unquestionable favors it-if time and experience sanction and approve it, as the best, most economical, and safest mode of revising the constitution, why sir, will you hesitate to adopt it? provided to make such changes-to secure such | had we had such a provision in our old constimodifications, without the expense and excite-tution, there would never have been the agitament of another convention. The increase, tion in the state which we have recently witgrowth, and business of the state, may require the addition of another circuit judge, and judicial district; it cannot be provided for, without a convention. Calamities or misfortune may render it necessary to borrow a few hundred thousand dollars. A convention must be called. The people may desire to change the mode of appointing the auditor, register, or any other officer of the government; a convention is the only means of securing it. They may desire to place some restriction on the taxing power of the general assembly. A convention is the only remedy. Will you, sir, deny to the people the I felt it to be my duty, sir, to present this matpower to make any-the slightest, the most un- ter to the convention for its adoption; and I will important change or modification of their fun-only add, that if any other mode of specific damental law, without the expense of a conven- amendment should be suggested, more in accortion? Certainly it would not be wise to adopt dance with the views of a majority of the conany such principle. If I could see any danger vention, and that will secure the rights of the in the world that would be likely to arise from people, I will, most cheerfully, accord it my the adoption of the principle which I suggest, I support. would have much hesitation in coming forward Mr. CLARKE. Mr. President, I have no with it; but when the experiment has been tried speech to make, but I have a resolution to offer in every section of the Union, alike where when a fitting time shall present itself, to test slavery does not exist, and where it does exist; the sense of this convention on the question inwhen it has been tried all over the Union, involved in the article before us, on which, I prethe sunny south and in the frigid north; in every climate and where every kind of property and every kind of right exists; when it has thus been tried and approved by all. And not only have other states, in all times since the forination of our government approved of this plan; but the friends of a convention and constitution al reform in Kentucky, assembled in convention in this hall in 1847 and 1848 have recommended and approved this same principle. In their manifesto published to the world as containing the changes and amendments they desired to see engrafted on our old constitution, they unanimously say upon this subject, "By the ninth article of the present constitution, the whole instrument must be submitted, to make the most unimportant amendments. We think, rather than put the whole machinery and form of government to hazard for the purpose of correcting an isolated error, it would be better to submit a single proposition for amendment to the consideratiou, first of the legislature, and then of the people, under such restrictions as shall be deemed advisable and safe. Public opinion may then be consulted upon a single proposition without the danger of combinations on other subjects." Several members of this body, Mr. President, signed that manifesto, and under that banner the battle of reform fought and won; and now we see the victors ready to abandon their own standard. was sume the mind of every gentleman is made up. I will send my resolution to the secretary's desk that it may be read for information. The secretary read it as follows: Resolved, That this convention is opposed to any and all specific modes of amendment, and will not adopt any specific mode of amending the constitution." The PRESIDENT said it was not now in order to offer the resolution. Mr. BROWN moved to amend the original report, by inserting the words "except ministers of the gospel who shall be eligible," in the twenty second line. The object of the amendment was to render ministers of the gospel eligible to seats in any future convention that may be called to amend the constitution. Mr. MERIWETHER said the words were omitted in his report by accident, and he intended to supply them. Mr. CLARKE moved the postponement of the further consideration of this article, that he might take the sense of the convention on the resolution which he had caused to be read. He thought much time might be saved if this course were taken, as the sense of the convention would be indicated on a very important principle. The motion was not agreed to. Mr. DESHA appealed to the convention to pass over the business before it, that the course suggested by the gentleman from Simpson might be tried. I ask if we ought now, in revising this constitution, to abandon it? Is it not cowardly? Mr. C. A. WICKLIFFE, for that purpose, I hope the good sense of this body, notwith-moved that the article under consideration be standing the prejudice which has been created laid upon the table for the present. against this plan, will induce them to consider The motion was agreed to. the proposition calmly and seriously; and that before we finally separate we shall have adopted some plan by which some por- Mr. R. N. WICKLIFFE moved the previous tions of our constitution may be amended, question upon it, and the main question was orwhen experience shall prove it to be neces-dered to be now put. Mr. CLARKE then, by general consent, submitted his resolution. sary, without putting to hazard the whole in- Mr. GRAY called for the yeas and nays, and strument. Are not gentlemen fully aware that they were, yeas 60, nays 29. YEAS-Mr. President, (Guthrie,) Richard Ap- election, have voted for calling a convention, person, John L. Ballinger, William K. Bowling, the general assembly shall, at their next regular Wm. Bradley, Thos. D. Brown, William C. Bul- session, direct that a similar poll shall be openlitt, Charles Chambers Jas. S. Chrisman, Bev-ed and taken at the next election for representaerly L. Clarke, Henry R. D. Coleman, William tives; and if, thereupon, it shall appear that a Cowper, Edward Curd, Garrett Davis, Chas-majority of all the electors of this state, voting teen T. Dunavan, Green Forrest, James H. Gar- at such election, have voted for calling a conrard, Richard D. Gholson, James P. Hamilton, vention, the general assembly shall, at their next Ben. Hardin, John Hargis, William Hendrix, session, call a convention, to consist of as many Andrew Hood, Thomas J. Hood, James W. Ir- members as there shall be in the house of reprewin, Alfred M. Jackson, Thomas James, George sentatives, and no more, to be chosen in the W. Johnston, Chas. C. Kelly, Peter Lashbrooke, same manner and proportion, at the same places, Thomas N. Lindsey, George W. Mansfield, Wil- and at the same time that representatives are, liam N. Marshall, Richard L. Mayes, Nathan by the electors qualified to vote for representaMcClure, David Meriwether, Wm. D. Mitchell, tives, and to meet within three months after said Hugh Newell, Elijah F. Nuttall, Henry B. Pol- election, for the purpose of re-adopting, amendlard, William Preston, Johnson Price, Larkin J. ing, or changing this constitution. But if it Proctor, John T. Robinson, John T. Rogers, shall appear by the vote of either year, as aforeJames Rudd, Ignatius A. Spalding, John W. said, that a majority of all the qualified electors Stevenson, James W. Stone, Michael L. Stoner, voting at such election, did not vote for a conJohn D. Taylor, William R. Thompson, John vention, a convention shall not be called.” J. Thurman, Howard Todd, Philip Triplett, I will briefly state the difference between this Squire Turner, Henry Washington, Andrew S. proposition and that of the committee. Under White, Charles A. Wickliffe, Robert N. Wick-the old mode, all the qualified voters, according liffe-60. to the last enumeration, who did not vote-no matter whether they were in the state or out of it-would be counted as against a convention. For instance, if a man died or removed out of the state, his name still being on the roll, he would be counted as against a convention. This was the case in 1847, when many of our voters were in Mexico. My proposition is that you should only count the votes which are polled. This is the principle pursued throughout the country in other respects. In amending our constitution here, all our decisions are made by the actual vote; we do not count the votes of the absentees; and I well know that if you did, there are many sections that have passed, which would have been rejected, and many rejected which would have been carried. The law, sir, should go into effect by the vote which is cast. When we come to submit this constitution to the vote of the people, whose ratification or rejection is to be final as to all that is done here, I presume we will test that question by the vote polled, and that we will not permit these votes to be counted against the constitution, which Mr. THOMPSON. I beg to offer the follow- have not been cast. This is the only difference ing as a substitute for the report of the commit-between my proposition and that of the com NAYS-John S. Barlow, Alfred Boyd, Luther Brawner, Francis M. Bristow, William Chenault, Jesse Coffey, Benj. Copelin, Lucius Desha, Jas. Dudley, Benjamin F. Edwards, Milford Elliott, Selucius Garfielde, Thomas J. Gough, Ninian E. Gray, Vincent S. Hay, M. E. Huston, W. Johnson, George W. Kavanaugh, Thomas W. Lisle, Willis B. Machen, Martin P. Marshall, John D. Morris, Jonathan Newcum, Thomas Rockhold, Ira Root, Albert G. Talbott, John Wheeler, George W. William, Silas Woodson-29. So the convention declared itself opposed to all specific modes of amendment. EVENING SESSION. Mr. BROWN withdrew the amendment which he offered at the morning session, as it was now unnecessary. Mr. GRAY also withdrew his amendment, the vote on Mr. CLARKE'S resolution having settled the principle which it contained. The question was then taken on the substitute of the gentleman from Madison, and it was rejected. tee: "When experience shall point out the necessity of amending this constitution, and when a majority of all the members elected to each house of the general assembly shall, within the first twenty days of their stated biennial seesion, concur in passing a law for taking the sense of the good people of this state, as to the necessity and expediency of calling a convention, it shall be the duty of the several sheriffs, and other returning officers, at the next general election which shall be held for representatives after the passage of such law, to open a poll in which the qualified electors of this state shall express, by vote, whether they are in favor of calling a convention or not; and said sheriffs and returning officers shall make return to the secretary, for the time being, of the names of all those electors voting at such election; and if, thereupon, it shall appear that a majority of the qualified electors of this state, voting at such mittee. I am opposed to specific amendments. There are, no doubt, many provisions in this constitution, which the people may wish to change. Under my proposition, they will have ample time to consider any proposed change; for from its first agitation till its final decision, will be a period of about four years. I think, therefore, that we ought to carry out the same principle which governs us in all other things. Mr. MERIWETHER, This is a plain proposition, and the convention can easily decide it. The principle is not changed at all; and the committee adopted the old provision in the belief that it was the most just and equal in its operations. If it be the wish of this convention to let another convention be called, whenever those voting at the polls should go for it, they will adopt the gentleman's proposition; but if they deem it necessary that there should be a full expression of opinion, and that a majority of all the votes should be required, they will sustain the proposition of the committee. The gentleman mentioned the circumstance of the votes of absentees being counted against the convention; but he did not consider the votes of those who had attained their twenty-first year, and of those who had migrated into the state. I think, taking the two things together, the matter will stand about equal. Mr. THOMPSON called for the yeas and nays on his proposition, and they were-yeas 9, nays 77. YEAS-Milford Elliott, Thos. J. Gough, Wm. Hendrix, James M. Lackey, Elijah F. Nuttall, Ira Root, Wm. R. Thompson, John J. Thurman, Silas Woodson-9. it shall not be done under the influence of pas sion, or any sudden dissatisfaction with the instrument itself, at the time it shall be given to them for consideration. I should not have of fered any amendment, if the carrying out of the plan proposed by the committee did not depend upon other parts of the constitution which have been made different. We have changed our time of holding elections. We now elect our representatives every second year instead of every year. If we adopt the report of the committee just as it is, it will require six years to call a convention. We have our elections but once in two years; the legislature will meet and direct whether there shall be a call for a convention or years afterwards; that will be four years before the action of the people will be known, and there will be a period of two years more before the legislature will meet to call a convention. I think this is rather too long. In my judgment, it is true, in a somewhat qualified sense, that the people have at all times the right to abolish their form of government; and I think that in a measure this right is taken away, by putting it out of their power, except after six years' delay. If it had been contemplated in the report of the committee, that those elections should have been held every year, as under the present constitution, I would not have been in favor of the people speaking but once upon the subject; but as it requires two years between each election, NAYS-Mr. President, (Guthrie,) Richard Ap-not. The election does not happen till two person, John L. Ballinger, John S. Barlow, William K. Bowling, Alfred Boyd, Wm. Bradley, Luther Brawner, Francis M. Bristow, Thos. D. Brown, William C. Bullitt, Charles Chambers Wm. Chenault, James S. Chrisman, Beverly L. Clarke, Jesse Coffey, Henry R. D. Coleman, Benjamin Copelin, William Cowper, Edward Curd, Lucius Desha, James Dudley, Chasteen T. Dunavan, Benjamin F. Edwards, Green Forrest, Nathan Gaither, James H. Garrard, Richard D. Gholson, Ninian E. Gray, James P. Hamilton, Ben. Hardin, John Hargis, Vincent S. Hay, Andrew Hood, Mark E. Huston, James W. Irwin, Alfred M. Jackson, Thomas James, William Johnson, George W. Johnston, George W. Kavanaugh, Charles C. Kelly, Peter Lashbrooke, Thomas N. Lindsey, Thomas W. Lisle, Willis B. Machen, George W. Mansfield, Alexander K. Marshall, Martin P. Marshall, William N. Marshall, Richard L. Mayes, Nathan McClure, David Meriwether, William D. Mitchell, John D. Morris, Jonathan Neweum, Hugh Newell, Henry B. Pollard, William Preston, Johnson Price, John T. Robinson, Thomas Rockhold, John T. Rogers, James Rudd, Ignatius A. Spalding, John W. Stevenson, James W. Stone, John D. Taylor, Howard Todd, Philip Triplett, Squire Turner, Henry Washington, John Wheeler, Andrew S. White, Chas. A. Wickliffe, Robert N. Wickliffe. George W. Williams-77. So the amendment was rejected. The question then recurred on the adoption of the section reported by the committee, as modi fied. Mr. A. K. MARSHALL. I move to amend by striking out the following words: "at the next regular session, direct that a similar poll shall be opened, and return made, for the next election for representatives; and if, thereupon, it shall appear that a majority of all the citizens of this state, entitled to vote for representatives, have voted for calling a convention, the general assembly shall.” I am in favor of retaining as much of the old constitution as possible, and averse to making any change, except such as are absolutely required upon principle; and if there had been no change made in the present constitution by the one we are about to propose to the people, I should not have moved for any change at all. I like the spirit of the present constitution, and also the spirit of the report of the committee. It is that the people in amending their.constitution shall do it under calm reflection; and that I think it is attempting to fasten too decidedly upon the community the work of our hands, to say that however much they may be dissatisfied with it, however much it may militate against the prosperity of the people, and instead of being a shield to guard and protect their rights, takes away those rights which they have already enjoyed. I think under these circumstances, that we are fixing too long a period of probation in requiring six years before their will shall be carried into effect." I do hope that the mere statement of the fact will convince every gentleman here of the impropriety of keeping the people so long without an opportunity of atnending our work. Mr. GHOLSON. I should like to vote understandingly upon this question. If by the term "general election for representatives" it is meant to be confined to the time at which representatives to the legislature are to be elected, the gentleman's remarks would be true. If I underderstand the provision made by the convention on this subject, the election for judicial and other officers is to come off one year, and that of members of congress and the legislature another year. I should like, when a majority are to vote for any alteration of the constitution, that it should be done the next year, without the intervention of a year in which there is no election. Mr. MERIWETHER. Instead of providing that the legislature shall act a second time, the general assembly shall direct that it shall be done at two successive elections. Strike out these words, if you please, which direct that the general assembly shall direct the alteration. Mr. TURNER. Are we then to have the people consulted at one election when they vote for their representatives, and again at another election when they vote for their judicial offi |