ingly from Norfolk to Washington county. My people, recognizing that I could not properly recede, refrained from instructing me.

I never questioned the constitutional power of the Convention to ordain this work, and I deem it the duty of a good citizen to submit to the powers that be. It will be recalled by those present that the debate on the subject, held in the hall of the Monticello Hotel just previous to the Norfolk Convention in 1901, opened with the dispute of the right of the Convention to submit the Constitution, and that the contention made by Hon. J. W. G. Blackstone, a distinguished Circuit Judge, largely led to the reverse expression of opinion favorable to submission.

There was undoubted force in Judge Blackstone's argument against the power to submit, for it is in line with the letter of the Underwood Constitution. But it should be remembered that while the power of a Constitutional Convention to ordain the instrument passed by it has been recognized throughout our Virginia history, and was exercised not only by the Revolutionary Convention of 1776, but also by the peace-time Conventions of 1830 and 1850, which did effectually proclaim their suffrage articles, while providing for the submission of the residue to the proclaimed suffragans; it must be remembered that in Virginia conventional power has been all along recognized as co-extensive with the object and purpose for which the body is called, and as scarce less than supreme. It was from the plentitude of power, in excess of that conferred in terms by the Underwood Constitution, and not from any limitation upon its power, that the Convention could have been justified in submitting to a popular vote.

The Hon. John Randolph Tucker, better versed in our Constitutional lore than any lawyer of his day, jealous of popular rights, and distinguished in their defense as in their elucidation, has expressed his opinion in his able treatise on the Constitution in favor of the power to ordain. And apart from the historical, traditional and professional views that sustain

that power, it is plain that the Underwood Constitution, under which the Convention was called, confers it.

That instrument provides two methods of Constitutional amendment the one by legislative procedure at two sessions of the body, and then a direct popular vote on the proposed amendment. The other method is through a legislative enactinent, and has two popular votes, first on the question, "Shall a Convention be called to revise the Constitution and amend the same?" and, second, an election by the people of the delegates to the Convention. So that the people in both instances control the subject matter.

When the people of Virginia conferred on the recent Convention power not only to "revise," but also "to amend" the old Constitution, they gave it plenary authority.

What means "revise"? To review, to look at again, to re-examine, to reperuse, and derivatively to alter, and amend.

What means "amend"? Let the Century Dictionary answer: "To make a change or changes in the form of; as a bill or motion or constitution; or to alter either in construction, purpose or principle." "Revise" is tentative, "amend" is decisive and conclusive. One house of Congress or Assembly may amend a bill, but it remains a bill, for that is its nature. Both houses of Congress or Assembly may "amend" a law, and a Convention in Virginia may amend a Constitution.

It matters not that the General Assembly provided for the future submission of the new Constitution, for the reason that the old Constitution is not silent on the subject, but gives clear, specific and express power to the Convention to do the amending itself; and for the further reason that the Convention had been called by the people, and their power was conferred without restriction before the Legislature acted on the subject, and nothing that a Legislature could do could override or contravene the superior Constitutional provisions.

It matters not that Judge Jameson, or judge anybody, has written an essay against the power of a Convention to ordain. Jameson in 1862 was in opposition to a Convention in Illinois, and his writings on the subject, admitting their ability and

honesty, were prompted by and saturated with the popular feelings of the time, and he was, as it were, the advocate of a party issue.

Besides, every sovereign State has its own jurisprudence, which is respected not only in its own courts, but as well in the Supreme Court of the United States and in foreign courts, whatever be their abstract views of the question presented; and, however the matter be regarded in Illinois or elsewhere, the Virginia view of it is recorded history.

Those who love truth and right should be slow to impute any kind of perfidy to the members of the Convention because of Democratic utterances on their platform. I felt bound by them, as well as by my own utterances; but others—amounting in number to forty-eight-were differently situated. Some had notified their constituents before election of their intention to vote for ordainment in whole or in part of the new Constitution; others felt themselves obliged to act according to the view of their constituents in favor of ordainment; others were controlled by primary meetings and elections; and it is not to be forgotten that public sentiment in the largest portions of the Commonwealth manifested itself in favor of ordainment, while there were but few expressions, comparatively, against it.

Louisiana, Mississippi and Delaware have in recent years preceded Virginia in similar action without any serious question being raised as to the validity of their course, which has been matured, ratified, confirmed and rendered irrevocable by all manner of acquiescence and recognition.

When some one said to Judge Culberson, of Texas, "Judge, do you think the United States has any right to annex the Philippine Islands?" he answered, "They have done done it.”

No court in the world's history has ever undone the ordained Constitution of a State, and no one need apprehend that the Constitution of Virginia will ever be undone save by the sovereign act of her own people, who may rescind and remould it by their own free will. Recognition placing it beyond peradventure has been made of it by the Governor, the executive

officers, the judges, the General Assembly, and, over all, by the people. It is "done done," and will stay done a fact accomplished.

The Convention has become history. It fulfilled its mission. Suffrage reform and practical economies are alike established. The committee chairmen-Green, Cameron, Moore, Hunton, Brooke, McIlwaine, Fairfax, Newton (whom Fairfax succeeded by reason of his sickness), Ayers, Braxton, Anderson, Jones, Harrison, Walker, Lindsay, Withers and Stuartdevotedly and worthily discharged their tasks. The debates were up to a high standard. The decorum was almost flawless. And of the body it may justly be said it equalled its high responsibilities.

And now, invested in her new Constitutional raiment, Virginia starts the new century. Ere yet the generation that fought the Civil War has departed from the stage, and despite the loss of a third of her territory and of the unreturning brave who fell in battle, her population has so increased that it exceeds by hundreds of thousands the population with which the undivided State entered that awful struggle. Its survivors have fulfilled the Anglo-Saxon creed, that the father departing hence shall bequeath his liberties to his children. So does a kind Providence repair the ravages of man. To-day Virginia is vital in every part, and the exclamation springs to our lips as we regard her with loving pride:

66

'Beauty's ensign yet is red upon her cheeks,

And death's pale flag is not yet advanced there."

The

Under the new regime human nature will not change. troubles of life will not cease. The moth and rust will still corrupt, and thieves break through and steal. But our burdens will be somewhat lightened. A more wholesome atmosphere surrounds us. A gentler sky smiles down upon us. A fairer landscape of boundless vistas stretches forth before us. Virginia has no bound to her aspiration save what is highest in character, in thought and in endeavor. And so let us gird our loins in good hope. Let us face the future with manly hearts, and let the word be, "Forward!"

Code of Ethics

Adopted July 24, 1889-Minutes 1889, Vol. II, Page 25.

The purity and efficiency of judicial administration, which under our system is largely governmental itself, depends as much upon the character, conduct and demeanor of attorneys in their great trust as upon the fidelity and learning of courts or the honesty and intelligence of juries.

"There is, perhaps, no profession, after that of the sacred mininstry, in which a high-toned morality is more imperatively necessary than that of the law. There is certainly, without any exception, no profession in which so many temptations beset the path to swerve from the line of strict integrity; in which so many delicate and difficult questions of duty are constantly arising. There are pitfalls and mantraps at every step, and the mere youth, at the very outset of his career, needs often the prudence of self-denial, as well as the moral courage, which belong commonly to riper years. High moral principle is his only safe guide; the only torch to light his way amidst darkness and obstruction."-Sharswood.

No rule will determine an attorney's duty in the varying phases of every case. What is right and proper must, in the absence of statutory rules and an authoritative code, be ascertained in view of the peculiar facts, in the light of conscience. and the conduct of honorable and distinguished attorneys in similar cases, and by analogy to the duties enjoined by statute, and the rules of good neighborhood.