tation of the article. The right to alter, re-
form or abolish, is in this very article called
unalienable. What is the signification of that
word "unalienable?" You cannot by statu-
tory provisions, or any provision put into a
Constitution, deprive the people of this right,
The plain meaning of the term is something
that cannot be taken away." No restraining
or subtracting power of the Legislature, or
of any body. of men, who frame or adopt
such a Constitution as this, can ever take
away from the people the right to alter, re-
form or abolish their form of government.
It is an unalienable right; that is, its power
resides in the people and cannot he taken
away from them. it seems to me that the
two ideas are inconsistent, an unalienable
right, and a right alienated, given up, or
surrendered by the people. How can the peo-
ple surrender an unalienable right ?
As to the phraseology of this article, I
think, as suggested by the gentleman from
Baltimore city, (Mr. Stockbridge) that if the
latter part is to stand as it is in the present
Constitution, the former part is inconsistent
with it; and it ought to be changed so as to
read that "the government of this State of
right originates from the people thereof, is
founded in compact only, and instituted sole-
ly for the good of the people of Maryland;
and they have at all times in the mode pre-
scribed in this Constitution, the unalienable
right to alter, reform or abolish their form of
government, in such manner as they may
deem expedient." That phraseology would
be more consistent. But I believe we have
no right to attempt by this Constitution to
take away an unalienable right. We have no
right to put into tine Constitution words that
might be construed into taking from the peo-
ple an unalienable right. Fur these reasons
I shall vole against the amendment of the
gentleman from Calvert.
Mr. SCHLEY. At the adoption of the Con-
stitution under which we now live, for the
first time I think in the Constitution of Mary-
land, the truth enunciated in this proposed
article of our Declaration of Rights, made its
appearance. It set forth, according to our
form of government, a right declared to be
unalienable; that is, the right to reform.
But at the same time, the democratic principle
which it enunciated was emasculated by the
introduction of the words, " in the mode pre-
scribed in this Constitution." How does the
present phraseology of the sentence differ in
meaning and effect from this reading ?
"And they have only the right according
to the mode prescribed by this Constitution,
to alter, reform or abolish their form of gov-
ernment."
What makes this particularly inconsistent
in the present Constitution is the fact that this
Constitution was adopted in violation of the
mode previously prescribed for altering or
amending the Constitution under which we |
had lived. In thus limiting the democratic
principle, they inflicted a wrong upon the
sense of the word applied to the right they
meant to enunciate, for they made it anything
else but " unalienable."
1 do not suppose that the motives which
would impel the people at any time to alter,
reform or abolish their Constitution, would
destroy the operation of this principle. I am
not afraid of any revolutionary conspiracy in
this State against the right contended for. 1
have no idea that if the doctrine is to be
enunciated at all, it should beclogged by any
provision whatever; and I shall therefore
vote against the proposed amendment.
Mr, CHAMBERS. The question before the
Convention at this moment has occupied the
attention of many jurists of the State, and
has been very fruitful of discussion. There
seems to me to be some misconception as to
the past history of this subject. I have before
me the Declaration of Rights as originally
adopted, the first Declaration of Rights adopt-
ed by lire people of the State, which contains
the whole doctrine which is embodied in the
late Constitution, and which it is now pro-
posed to embody in the present Constitution.
It is in these words :
"An. 1, All government of right origi-
nates from the people, is founded in compact
only, and instituted solely for the good of the
whole.
"Art. 2. That the people of this State
ought to have the sole and exclusive right of
regulating the internal government and police
thereof,"
The gentleman who has last spoken, is mis-
taken as to the force and effect of the provi-
sion in the first Constitution, in supposing
that it did not limit the mode in which
amendments to the Constitution were to be
adopted. In Art. 42d of the Declaration of
Rights, first made, it is provided—
"That this Declaration of Rights, or the
form of government to be established by this
Convention, or any part of either of them,
ought not to be altered, changed or abolished
by the Legislature of this State but in such
manner as this Convention shall prescribe and
direct."
Mr. SCHLEY. The gentleman misunderstood
me. I said that the Constitution under which
we live was not made in strict conformity
with the provisions of the old Constitution.
Mr. CHAMBERS, It was a subject of very
much doubt with many persons learned in
constitutional law, whether by this means the
Convention had not forfeited all claim to the
respect of the people; but it was conceded, 1
believe, everywhere, that if the Constitution
was adopted by that Convention, and recog-
nized by the existing government of the State,
and not opposed by any popular movement,
it became, whatever infirmity might be
charged upon it in the incipient stage of the
proceedings, imperative upon all the people |
