|
rights Mtd property of her citizens. For three
days was that noble, gallant eity under the con-
trol of a lawless, though "immortal power." Nor
was it restrained until the venerable patriot of
the Revolution, Geo. Samuel Smith, was called
from his quiet abode to take command, and res-
cue his native city from anarchy and bloodshed.
The Legislature of Maryland at its next session
passed the indemnity law, by which the sufferers
were compensated for the loss of property. Do
gentleman desire that gush scenes should recur
again ? If not, encourage not this morbid appe-
tite for unrestrained license which must result in
anarchy.
The gentleman from Frederick, (Mr. Johnson,)
ask9j •would you deny to the people of Maryland,
what has been done in the monarchical govern-
ments of Europe, the right to overthrow their
government?
Mr. J. said the gentleman should recollect that
our institutions were established by ourselves,
aed are very different from the monarchical or
absolute governments of Europe. Here the peo-
ple formed their own Constitutions, in their own
way; enacted the laws by their accredited agents;
prescribed the manner in which those Constitu-
tions should be framed and altered. It required
B6 revolution to accomplish this — it was the free
action of the poeple — their Constitution — their
laws. He was surprised that comparison
should be attempted between the State of Mary-
land, aud any of the oppressed subjects of Europe,
His friend had referred to "France whose peo-
ple had hurled from power those tyrannical
rulers, and taken the government into their own
keeping. " There was no analogy between the
government of France, and the government of
•Maryland, and, however much he desired to see
republican principles prevail, he should not look
to the present state of France, as an example
worthy of imitation. It is true she had dethroned
her monarch — it was equally' true that her present
condition evinced but little of republican govern-
ment. At peace with all the world, an army of
four hundred thousand soldiers are held in arms
to preserve the peace of her own citizens, and it
is generally admitted that at no period during
LouisPhilfipe's reign, was the press under so
rigid a serveilance as at the present moment. The
government is unstable — her citizens in constant
dread of revolution. This, Mr. J. believed to be
attributed to the organization of her government,
in having but one Assembly, uncontroled, except
by popular will. So long as this state of things
Axisted, Mr. J. had but little hopes of a pure re-
publican administration of the French govern-
' ment. Engraft similar principles upon Mary-
land, and anarchy will subvert the Republic.
The proposition of the gentleman, as explained
by himself, wilt be productive of revolution; and
here, Mr. j. said, he would do justice to his col-
league from the city of Baltimore, (Mr. Brent,)
who, iu his argument yesterday, had taken a
Bound, statesman-like view of the subject as
regards the manner of altering or abolishing
the Constitution. It must.be done by the provi-
sions of the Constitution and laws, or by revolu-
tion. On the two important questions those gen-
|
tlemen differ, though representing the same con-
stituency. The one, (Mr. Brent,) an advocate For
representation exclusively on the basis of num-
bers. Whilst his colleague, (Mr. Presstman,) does
not think there is a sensible man in the city of
Baltimore in favor of, or who expects the appor-
tionment to be based exclusively on population.
Mr. PRESSTMAN said such was the feelings of
his constituents, although since he came here he
had expressed a willingness to agree to a com-
promise.
Mr. J. resumed. So far his friend was right,
and held sound doctrine, and Mr. J. regretted
that he did not go with his colleague, (Mr.
Brent,) in favor of " changing or abolishing the
Constitution according to the laws of the land."
Mr. STEWART, of Caroline, here asked if the
new Constitution would be in accordance With
the frame of the old Constitution ? •
Mr. J. replied that the gentleman from Caro-
line was as competent to answer that question
as he was. As for himself, Mr. J. said, he was
for such changes in the Constitution as' might
contribute to the interest and benefit of tive
whole State, giving to a majority aproper influ-
ence; to the minority a safe and efficient protec-
tion. With such land-marks, he would not be
fastidious as to minor questions.
Mr. J. concluded by saying it was far from his
intention to discuss at length all the questions
involved in the bill of rights. He believed that,
as reported by the Committee, it embraced «hd
breathed throughout, sound, republican, demo-
cratic doctrines. He would not, as others had
done here, make professions of his love for the
people; he distrusted and doubted the sincerity
of some of those who were constantly proclaim-
ing their devotion to the rights and will of the
people. He preferred to guard the people against
the professions of those who were loud in de-
nouncing as enemies those who did not unite with
them in administering to popular clamor.
Mr. WRIGHT, without making a speech, felt
himself bound to state his sentiments. His friend
from Baltimore had expressed opinions in regard
to the rights of the peopte, and he desired to say
that he concurred in every word which had
fallen from that gentleman. The people have a
right to alter, modify or change their Constitu-
tion, in any way which they may deem consis-
tent with their interests. But the gentleman
from Baltimore did not go far enough. The peo-
ple would not be sufficiently vigilant over their
own rights, if they did not take care to have a
clause in the Constitution -which would place
in their own hands the power to change or alter
the organic law at their will, h is our duty, is
their agents, to make such provision. But the
gentleman from Baltimore did not go far enough;
he was for cutting the dam, and letting lose the
water, before th« reservoir was prepared for. its
reception. The other gentleman from Balti-
iiioie, had gone further; he went about as far as
this Convention shouldeo. , He would go wfth
both these gentlemen, vho had Stood boldly for-
ward to assert that the 'people had rights, and
told them how they ought to exercise itiose
rights. The gentleman from Dorchester, (Mr.
|
