|
Bowie, McCubbin, Dirickson, McMaster, Hearn,
Fooks, Jacobs, Shriver, Biser, Tlrawley, Michael
Newcomer, Smith, Shower and Brown— 27.
Negative— Messrs. Chapman, President, Blak-
istone, Dent, Hopewell, Ricaud, Chambers, of
Kent, Donaldson, Dorsey, Wells, Randall, Kent,
Weems, Williams, McCullough, Miller, McLane,
Tuek,Sprigg, Bowling, Spencer, Grason,George,
Wright, Gaither, Annan, Sappington, Stephen-
son, McHenry, Magraw, Nelson, Stewart of Car-
oline, Gwinn, Slewart of Baltimore city, Brent,
of Baltimore eity, Presstman, Ware, Schley,
Fiery, Neill, John Newcomer, Harbine, Davis,
Kilgour, Brewer, Waters, Weber, Hollyday,
Slicer, Fitzpatrick, Parke, and Cockey— 51.
So the amendment was rejected.
The question then recurred on the amendment
of Mr. PRESSTMAN.
Mr. DIRICKSON 'took the floor, but yielded to
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent, who desired to offer an
amendment.
Mr. C. said, that the question involved in the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Bal-
timore city, (Mr. Presstman,) was, or was not,
in his, (Mr. G's,) humble judgment, proper to
be adopted or not, according to the construction
put upon it.
ftli~* CHAnsdna Bald, tbnt tho main objection to
the proposition of the gentleman from Baltimore
city was, that the argument by which it was sus-
tained, had very much embarrassed the question.
Constructions had been put upon the amendment
which would render it of doubtful meaning. It
was evident that the opinions of gentlemen who
had discussed it, differed widely from each other;
and so the constructions put upon it by the peo-
ple would be indistinct and discordant. What-
ever is inserted in the Constitution ought to be
clear and indisputable. He intended to vote
against the amendment in its present form, and
with a view to make it more acceptable, he pro-
posed to move an amendment. By one party it
had been held, that, without Constitutional en-
actments or against them, classes of men might
resolve themselves into a meeting, and set up a
Constitution of their own. Another class insist-
ed that it was the right of tlfe people to change
the Constitution by any process, and in any way
they might think best. With a view to clear the
amendment of all mistiness, and make it clear
to every comprehension, he moved to amend by
adding the following words:
"According to the mode authorized by the
Constitution or laws of the land."
Mr. RIDGELY was of opinion, that the amend-
mentofthegentUsmanfrom Kent, wasnotcalculat-
edjto meet the object he had in view, but rather to
embarrass the question. The proposition of the
gentleman from Baltimore city, (Mr. Presstman,)
asserts a mere truism, an abstract political truth
which no one would deny, to be embodied in tha
category of rights, in which is usually presentee
flie analysis, or general principles of republicai
government. All such general declarations o
popular' rights, contemplate the last' resort of a
people to throw off oppression, "when the end o
Government is perverted, and the public Iiber!}
|
s manifestly endangered," they mean in plain
erma, revolution. That this power is inherent,
nalienable, and would as well exist without, as
)y its assertion in, the bill of rights, is indisputa-
il e. No body can deny such a right as inherent
B the people and inseparable from all free gov-
rnment.
The present declaration of rights so recog-
nizes it; and this proposition is but a reiteration
of the truth. What does the amendment of the
gentleman from Kent propose? To strip this ab-
stract declaration, of its abstract character; to
seize upon an abstract truth, which contemplates
revolution only, as I have already said, and to
apply it to a totally diBerent purpose, to wit : to
make it, in its connection, as a part of the bill of
rights; in fact a constitutional restraint, as to the
manner of altering the civil compact. Is such
the proper place — is this the proper connection for
such a proposition? Is there propriety or fit-
ness of things, in such antagonist association of
civil and revolutionary means of changing or al-
oring the form of Government? It seems to me
lot. When we reach the amendatory clause in the
Constitution, there will be the proper place to put
restraints upon its amendment, and to define
and prescribe the manner of its change. There
would doubtless be difference of opinion on that
subject— that was a vital question — but here, in
the bill of rights, there could be no difference of
opinion, upon abstract truths — truths which had
jeen utterred by our fathers seventy years ago,
vere still truths and would forever remain truths.
How and when to be exercised, or restrained by
.he civil compact, is a question for detail in the
Constitution proper. What difficulty could there
36 in voting for such a broad proposition. He
could see none. Let it go into the bill of rights,
as an abstract declaration, in company with all
other articles ejusdem generis. There it will be
qualified and restrained, by the defined terms of
the Constitution proper, in which he was ready
to unite with the gentleman from Kent. There
was no fear of misapprehension upon this sub-
ject: the bill of rights and the Constitution must
50 together, as a whole, and be expounded in
connection. He hoped therefore the amendment
would be withdrawn, and the proposition of the
gentleman of Baltimore city be agreed to.
Thereupon the Convention adjourned until to-
morrow at 11 o'clock.
THURSDAY, January 30th, 1851.
.The Convention met at eleven o'clock.
Prayer was made by the Rev. Mr. GRABFF.
The roll having been called, the Secretary pro-
ceeded to read the journal of yesterday.
Mr. PHELPS moved that the reading be dist
pensed with.
Mr. SPENCER thought the precedent a bad one ,
and hoped the motion would not prevail.
Mr. PHELPS, not pressing his motion, the jour-
nal was read, and having been amended so as to
|
