|
Hicks,) had offered an amendment, either in jest
or for the purpose of consuming time. He re-
garded that am«ndment as a rider intended to
clog and break down the original proposition.
He repelled the idea that Baltimore would op-
press the counties. She had too many ties which
bound them to her. She was th% ornament and
pride of the State. Stvil he did not blame the
gentleman from Dorchester, who sought to delay
the action of the House. He hoped the Conven-
tion would go to work, not like lawyers, but in
the course suggested by common sense.
Mr. HICKS assured his friend from Queen
Anne's, that he had not offered his amendment in
jest, und if that gentleman would go among his,
(Mr. H.'sj constituents, he would find there was
no jest in it. He was a friend of the people, and
so was the gentleman from Queen Anne's, and
he reminded that gentleman that back-sliders
were the worst of sinners. He looked on himself
as representing as noble a constituency as can be
found in Maryland, and he came here to do his
duty to them. He had never desired to come
here. He never believed there was any neces-
sity for this Convention. He had thought that
the Constitution under which we have lived so
long, was good enough, and that the provision
contained in it relative to its change was suffi-
cient. But he bad been sent here, and he would
now do his duty. He was as proud of Baltimore
as his friend from Queen Anne's, and would not
jjirow a straw in the way of her prosperity; but
while he agreed to all his friend had said about
the change of seasons from summer to winter,
he was not convinced that the State should give
way to the city of Baltimore. His friend from
Caroline, (Mr. Stewart,) had also spoken in a
similar strain. Now he desired to say to that
gentleman, that he had no desire to separate the
Eastern Shore from the State. His friend from
Caroline was the only one, he believed, who
thought that the gloomy days were all past. (He
seemed to fpiget that there IB a heavy debt hang-
ing over the State, and that the counties are suf-
fering under the burden. It would be better,
perhaps, to look round the Jp>rizon, and see if
there are no new storms gathering. How long
if wouldbe before new troubles would come, he
cbuld not predict. He referred to the language
of the reformers in Baltimore, before this Con-
vention was called, tf hen they asserted tbat their
wishes were very jnoderate and reasonable.
Previous to 1836, the city had buttwo delegates,
and he believed she got along just as well as
•when she has had more. He assured the House,
that if ever the time should come, when the State
should fall under the dominion of Baltimore, il
he should not have left the world, he would
never give his consent that the counties should
be placed in a position to be used by Baltimore
at her pleasure. When he came from home, he
felt a disposition to give a larger representation
to the city, but he felt less disposition to do it
now that be saw she was never to be satisfied.
He agreed with the gentleman from Baltimore,
that we have the power in our hands; but as al]
, power.isto begivejiby tbje Constitution, hehoped
it would be made to operate equally. He be-
|
)elieved that without the provision contained in ,
lis amendment, it would be in the power of part
of the Western Shore of Maryland, to unite her-
self with the State of Virginia, and of the East-
ern Shore to unite herself to Delaware, by agree-
ment with the States, and with the consent of
Congress, but he desired to hare such privilege
or right recognized and countenanced by the
Constitution, which we are now framing, that
t may not be considered as revolutionary here-
after.
Mr. PHEIPS would not now address the Conven-
;ion, or attempt to say one word, had he not felt
mpelled to do so, from a high sense of public duty.
The amendment offered by the geptleman from
Baltimore city, (Mr. Presstman,) in the sense in
which that honorable gentleman has explained
it, would in his humble estimation, if acted upon,
at all times, be liable to subvert the foundation
of the government, and to encourage a lawless
opposition to the Constitution itself.
This amendment, we have been informed, is
taken from the Texan bill of rights, and was
drawn up by Mr. Calhoun himself — that the same
amendment has been incorporated in many other
State Constitutions. AB positive proof, that the-
construction given this article, is not correet.bnt
was intended to be exercised as an extreme right,
Mr. PHELPS read the 37th article of the Texaii
Constitution, which provides that the Constitu-
tion shall not be altered, except by a vote of tw.o-
thirds of the Legislature in favor of the proposed
amendments, and which amendments shall be
published, and voted upon by the people, and
f opposed by a majority of all the votes the
amendments shall not even then be adopted, un-
less confirmed by two-thirds of the next General
Assembly. This provision, Mr. Phelps repeated,
was proof positive, that Mr. Calhoun, nor the
people of Texas, never' intended to claim the,
lawless and most dangerous right to sbojifh
their organic law, in the manner contended for
tiy the mover of this proposition. Such doctrines,
Mr. President, should not be countenanced in this
Hall, or elsewhere. Besides, you find similar
provisions incorporated in the Constitutions of
Missouri, Michigan, Arkansas and other States,
supposed to be thoroughly indoctrinated with the
spirit of progressive democracy. Even South
Carolina contends for no such right. In fact, no
State in this broad Union would dare contend
that the people in lawless assemblies and in a law-
less manner, could proceed to form a new Go^
eminent, upon the ruins of the old one, ualesa it
be by revolution. Mr FHELPS insisted earnestly
that this doctrine, if acted upon, would prove
most disastrous in its consequences. A Consti-
tution is the foundation of all law. It is the
bulwark of all our civil and religious rights. Its
foundations should be broad and strong, else the
whole edifice might tumble into ruins. Consti-
tutions, Mr. President, are the results of compro-
mise. Minorities, as well as majorities, have '
rights by virtue of this agreement, and both alike
should be held sacred and inviolable. This pro-
vision requiring a two-third vote, and the action
of two consecutive sessions of the General As-
sembly to alter or amend the Constitution, you
|
