Constitutional Whig

FRIDAY MORNING, DEC. 30, 1825.

According to Christmas usage, our paper did not appear on Tuesday. We have brought up leeway to-day by a Supplement.

General Assembly.—Prospects at the commencement of the session bid fair for an early adjournment, but from present appearances, the General Assembly cannot adjourn much sooner than the 1st March. New business is daily originating, and some of it, from its complex character will necessarily consume much time in discussion. This is a necessary consequence of the great variety and conflict of interests drawn into legislation, and for which there can be no remedy.

The questions of interest pending, are those of the James River Improvement, the Convention, the revision of the Chancery and Superior Court systems, the proposition to confer jurisdiction touching divorces on the Superior Courts of Chancery, for defining Contempts of Courts, and to repeal the prohibition on a widower's marrying the sister of his deceased wife. There are other matters of interest before the Legislature, but this enumeration embraces the chief questions affecting the State at large—unless a further appropriation to complete the University, to restore the power of pardoning Penitentiary offences to the Executive, and to establish an asylum for the deaf and dumb, be so considered.

No distinct proposition relative to the further prosecution of the improvement of James River. has been submitted to the General Assembly, nor is it foreseen in what shape the question will come from the Committee of Roads and Internal Navigation. One thing seems to be generally understood, that the further prosecution of the Independent Canal will be abandoned. except to authorize the completion of contracts actually made. Experience has formed a new era, and the Legislature satisfied of the impracticability of the late canal design, will probably be content to authorize the simplest and most economical mode of Improvement. consistent with the actual demands of the James River trade—what that mode is to be, we have no lights to conjecture. The late tariff of tolls just about to go into operation—has been discovered to be quite as impracticable in execution, as other parts of that romantic scheme, and a proposition from the inhabitants of Richmond to have it modified, called forth a display of feeling in the House of Delegates, indicative of the unpopularity of the whole subject, of the warmth which may be expected in its discussion, and of the fate which awaits any effort to procure a reduction of tolls, or to continue the Canal. The toll of one dollar per hogshead on tobacco, has alienated that whole interest. and it is believed that the friends of the Canal, are confined to the counties lying on the head branches of James and Jackson Rivers—and the Kanawha Road and Navigation.

We are not sanguine as to the success of the measure of calling a Convention. The small counties are against it—the large ones for it, leaving it doubtful on which side the majority lies. It will be recollected that at the last session, the question presented was "will you leave the people to say whether they will have a Convention or no?" Strange as it may seem, Republicans manifested a want of confidence in the people, and refused to submit it to their decision—and the same feeling still exists. The same question is again presented to the legislature, backed by the petitions of thousands of freeholders, from various parts of the State. The development of public opinion since the last winter, confirms the supposition that a majority of the people desire the call of a Convention. The friends of the Convention present this dilemma to its enemies —either the people are for it, or against it. If for it, upon what principle of republicanism will you withhold it from them? If against it, what harm can result from their declaring their opinions at the polls? Either horn of the dilemma tosses the opponents of the measure into the air. The other side contends that the people already have the power of assembling in Convention if they desire it, and that to pass a law directing the sense of the people to be taken, would be a Legislative usurpation. To this it is replied, that the natural and indefeasible right of the people to alter or abolish the existing form of Government, is as freely acknowledged by the friends as the foes of the Convention, and that the demand for Legislative interference, by no means implies a denial of this right. But they contend that the enemies of the Convention, particularly Mr. Leigh, themselves insisted that an attempt to change the Constitution without the sanction of the Legislature, was a near approach to treason—that it is the people, whose natural power it is pretended, would be usurped by the Legislature in the passage of such a law, who request that the law may be passed—that if they are willing. all scruples as to the right of the Legislature must be groundless and even ridiculous—and that without the aid of the Legislature, a Convention never can be organized even with a decided majority in its favor, without exposing the state to convulsions, and possibly a violent Revolution. We leave it to the disinterested to say (if any such can be found) on which side the weight of argument lies. The Committee of 24 has not yet reported on the subject.

We shall continue the review in our next.