Of another and less known colored delegate to this convention, this could not be said as denoting his attitude. While bearing himself with dignity and strictly observing the proprieties of debate, the mulatto of whom mention is next made, eloquently illustrated the adage, that “the business of an opposition is to oppose.” The man and his efforts historically considered deserve some recognition. James E. Wigg, was born at Linden Park, Bluffton, Beaufort District, South Carolina, March 25, 1850, the son of a colored woman by a white man. As a small boy he attracted the attention of Gen. David Hunter, upon whom he waited at Hilton Head, who, after the war, took him with him to Washington, D. C., and placed him at Whalen Institute. He was said to have been well versed in theology, and “an earnest follower of Swedenborg.”[242] His work in the Convention was marked by a distinct exhibition of intelligence. He submitted a draft for a constitution which was creditable, and he proposed an ordinance, to the Committee on Finance and Taxation, of distinct merit. It constituted politics of a high order. It was a bold challenge to the white majority, on a line hard to defend the unfavorable report of the Committee in response to. Wigg’s ordinance was as follows: “Be it ordained by the people of South Carolina, in convention assembled, that the Comptroller General, County Auditors, County Treasurers and all persons charged with the collections of State or municipal taxes, be and are hereby required, to keep separate and distinct accounts of all tax returns and taxes paid by white and colored taxpayers and that the same be always open for public inspection.” The Convention voted this down, although the subject is known to be one upon which much loose generalization is continually indulged in as the basis of political appeals to voters. But Wigg struck a more telling note than this. The concluding clause of Article 1, Sec. II being reported: “After the adoption of this constitution any person who shall fight a duel or send or accept a challenge, for that purpose, or be an aider or abettor in fighting a duel, shall be deprived of holding any office of honor or trust in the State, and shall be otherwise punished as the law shall prescribe.” To this Wigg suggested the simple addition, “or any one engaged in lynching.”[243] The amendment was voted down, but in what position did the vote so disposing of it place the law-making whites? How does it read today?