would be fraught with extreme danger. So universally has this action of the Georgia legislature been discountenanced, that it has never been imitated in that or any other State. In the Rhode Island case, the departure from principle was little more than nominal, since, although the General Assembly enlarged the list of those authorized to vote for delegates to the second Convention of November, 1841, as well as to that of 1842, beyond the limits of the existing laws, that body had, by the charter of Charles II., as we have seen, the right to determine the qualifications of voters, and it was clearly a wise exercise of its legislative discretion to extend the franchise to those citizens whose just discontent had lately precipitated them into revolution.

In the case of New Jersey, it does not appear whether the electorate was, on the whole, increased or diminished. The Act calling the Convention of 1844, on the one hand, restricted the right of voting for delegates to the white citizens, instead of to all the inhabitants of full age, who had that right under the Constitution of 1776; but it increased the number of voters by removing the property qualification required by the same Constitution. It certainly, however, violated principle in thus giving the right of choosing delegates to persons not entitled to vote under the existing Constitution.

As to the Maryland Convention of 1867, it may be observed that, if it enfranchised the citizens who had been involved in the rebellion, and been disfranchised by the Constitution of 1864, in a manner or by a majority forbidden by that instrument, as is charged by the memorial above referred to, or if it caused those citizens to be registered contrary to law, and to be represented in the Convention by a disproportionate representation, as is also charged, the case is clearly one of a departure from principle, and ought not to be drawn into precedent. The case is put thus hypothetically because the statement of facts made in the memorial may be exaggerated or untrue.

CHAPTER V.

OF THE ORGANIZATION AND MODES OF PROCEEDING OF CONVENTIONS.

§ 267. THE Convention having been called, our next inquiries relate to the general structure or constitution of the body, to its internal organization and to its modes of proceeding.

The constitution of a Convention may be considered with reference, first, to its membership - the qualifications therefor – and, secondly, to the question of its subdivision into separate chambers, possessed of a mutual negative upon each other. 1. The first question - Who may be members of a Convention ? receives an explicit answer in but few of our Constitutions. The Kentucky Constitution of 1850, Article XII., requires that they shall be "possessed of the same qualifications of a qualified elector;" that of California of 1879, and that of Florida of 1865, that they shall have "the same qualifications as members of the General Assembly;" and that of Illinois of 1870, "the same qualifications as members of the Senate,” which differ from those prescribed for the electors in the requirement that Senators shall be of the age of twenty-five years, citizens of the United States, resident in the State five years, and in the district in which they were elected two years, next preceding their election; whereas for electors, a residence of one year in the State, ninety days in the county, and thirty days in the election district, next preceding any election sufficed, thus increasing the qualifications for delegates above those prescribed for electors. These are the only Constitutions which have prescribed the qualifications of the delegates to Conventions.

In the Acts under which Conventions have assembled, however, the qualifications of the delegates have been more frequently specified. The most common requirement is, that they shall possess the qualifications of "electors," or "voters," or

1

195

or

"which would entitle them to vote for Representatives to the General Assembly;" or "the qualifications of members of the House of Representatives; "2 or "those required of members of the General Assembly; "3 or "those of Senators ;' or that they shall be" discreet and proper persons; or "free male citizens of the State twenty-four years of age and upwards; 996 "free white men, twenty-one years of age, resident one year in the State, provided that they possess the freehold required of a member of the House of Commons," or "persons entitled, under 7 the Act calling the Convention, to vote for delegates; " or "white male citizens of the United States having certain qualifications of age or residence in the State or Territory," or “having the qualifications of voters under existing laws; "persons resident in the county, or delegate district," of the former, the same number as of the members of the House of Delegates, and two of the latter; 11 or that "the elections of delegates should be conducted in the same places and manner, and under the same regulations, and the result be certified and declared in the same manner as prescribed for members of the House of Representatives.12

9

99 10

or

Some Convention Acts prescribe the qualifications of delegates

1 Convention Acts of Colorado and New Hampshire, 1876; Florida, 1861; Indiana, 1850; Kansas, 1857; Michigan, 1867; Nebraska and Nevada, 1864; Ohio, 1850 and 1873; Rhode Island, 1824 and 1831; and South Carolina, 1860.

2 Convention Acts of Arkansas, 1861 and 1874; Maryland, 1864; and North Carolina, 1875.

3 Convention Acts of Georgia, 1877; and Louisiana, 1852.

4 Convention Acts of Alabama, 1875; and Iowa, 1857.

5 Convention Act of Virginia, 1850.

6 Convention Acts of Delaware, 1831 and 1852.

7 Convention Act of North Carolina, 1835.

8 Convention Acts of Georgia, 1877; New York, 1821; Rhode Island, 1824, and November, 1841.

9 Convention Acts of Florida, 1838, requiring twelve months' residence; Georgia, 1833 and 1839, requiring the age of twenty-five years, an inhabitancy of the State of seven and three years respectively, and a residence in the county of one year; Iowa, 1844 and 1846, requiring six months' residence in the Territory; Michigan, 1835, requiring twenty-one years of age; and Virginia, 1861, requiring twenty-five years of age.

10 Enabling Act of Nevada, 1863.

11 Convention Act of West Virginia, 1872.

12 Convention Act of Michigan, 1836.

in negative terms, as, that no person excluded from the privilege of holding office by the XIV. amendment to the Constitution of the United States should be eligible as a member of the Convention; or no person who is not twenty-one years of age, a citizen of the State twelve months, and of the district from which he is sent six months, preceding the election; 2 or no person not twenty-four years of age, a free white male citizen of the United States, a citizen of the State two years, and of the district one year, before his election. In these cases, doubtless, all citizens qualified to vote at general elections, and not embraced within the prohibited classes, would be eligible to the Convention.

The Acts calling the Maryland Conventions of 1850 and 1867 required for delegates to those bodies the same qualifications as for members of the House of Delegates. But the former declared to be eligible, also, "Senators or Representatives in Congress, State Senators, and civil officers of the State or the United States, residing within the State twelve months preceding the election;" but the latter excluded "clergymen, ministers of the gospel, preachers of any denomination, Senators and Representatives in Congress, Judges of Circuit, Superior, Common Pleas, and Criminal Courts, State's Attorneys, Auditors of the city of Baltimore, Clerks of Courts, Registers of Wills, and Sheriffs,” from seats in the Convetion.

Finally, the Act calling the New York Convention of 1867 made a wholly new departure in authorizing to sit as a delegate in said body any citizen of the State, whether a resident of the district for which he was elected or not. Whether this Act could be construed as authorizing the election of women, or persons under age, may perhaps be doubted. If not, it does little more than authorize the election of male citizens of New York of mature years, whether resident in the same election district or not. From the above citations it may be stated that in no case has any Constitution or Convention Act authorized to sit as a member of a Convention any person not a citizen of the State, and a qualified voter or elector according to the existing law; or any person

1 Act of March 2, 1867, under which the second series of Reconstruction Conventions assembled. U. S. Sts. at Large, vol. 14, p. 428.

2 Acts calling the Tennessee Conventions of 1861 and 1870. 8 Convention Act of Missouri, 1861-63.

not a resident in the election district from which he seeks an election as delegate, save in the single case just noted of New York.

§ 268. In the Constitutions of several of the States, now in force, after making provision for calling Conventions under certain circumstances, the delegates thereto are required to be "chosen in the same manner, at the same places, and at the same time," as the representatives to the General Assembly, and the same or equivalent phraseology is found in many of the Acts of the State legislatures by which Conventions are called. So, also, in the enabling Acts passed by Congress, authorizing Conventions in Territories, there is commonly inserted a provision requiring the elections to be "conducted in the same manner as is prescribed by the laws of the Territory regulating elections therein for members of the House of Representatives." To these add, what is believed to be the fact, that in no case has any person ever been elected as a delegate to a Convention in the United States who was not a citizen-elector, resident in the State where the Convention was called, and the case, upon one side, is presented. If it does not establish the fact, that, as a general rule, no one, not possessing at least the general qualifications of an elector, is eligible to a Convention, it certainly raises a strong implication to that effect.

§ 269. Against these facts should be set off the declarations of certain authorities, in and out of Conventions, laying down an opposite rule, according to which the electors may choose whom they will to represent them in those bodies, whether qualified electors or not, even if non-residents of the State, and that, whether restricted by the Act calling the Convention or not. Thus, the opinion has been expressed, that "the delegates may be individuals from any class, including the ministers of religion, the Governor, and other public functionaries, and the judges "1persons, by many of our Constitutions, excluded from occupying seats in our General Assemblies, or from holding any other places of honor or profit. So, in the Pennsylvania Convention of 1837, it was intimated that, had the county of Philadelphia elected Albert Gallatin, a citizen and resident of New York, as its delegate, it would have been competent for that body to admit him to a seat, in the face of the Act of the legislature, above referred 1 Hinton's Hist. U. S., Vol. II. pp. 324–327.