Introduction/11

of some of the brightest, most learned, and deeply committed individuals, and
above all, the constitution they formulated, served the state well.

Government in the State of Maryland is much different today than it would
have been had the Constitutional Convention of 1967-1968 not been held. Legisla-
tive action subsequent to the defeat of the proposed constitution resulted in a major
reorganization of state government, especially of the executive and judicial
branches. The members of the Constitutional Convention sought to provide greater
accountability, a more rational organization of governmental functions, and a re-
duction in the layers of bureaucracy. In exploring and articulating means to achieve
these goals, the members of the Constitutional Convention Commission and the
Constitutional Convention captured the spirit of the times, and much of what they
advocated was subsequently adopted by the General Assembly and ratified by the
voters as amendments to the Constitution of 1867.

Perhaps the most prescient statement of the ultimate value and meaning of the
Constitutional Convention came from the only delegate who refused to endorse the
proposed new constitution. In explaining his inability to support that document,
Delegate Philip H. Dorsey noted: "I feel the work here and the work that was done
by the commission prior to the meeting of this Convention will not be lost, because I
feel that it will be a reference work in the reform of government in this State for the
next century."¹⁹ And so it has been, at least thus far. In the wake of failure, much
good for the State of Maryland resulted from the Constitutional Convention Com-
mission and the Constitutional Convention of 1967-1968, and much can be learned
today about the Constitution of 1867 from the Debates of the Convention called to
write its replacement.

¹⁹ Ibid., p. 3388.