|
would refrain from expressions which grated
harshly upon the feelings of so large a portion
of the community. Outrage, heaped upon out-
rage, might compel them, however reluctantly, to
begin to think seriously of separation. Leave
them in their present position of independence,
and peace and harmony would dwell forever in
our borders. Reduce them to the condition of
colonies, and no man could tell the end. They
had lived too long as freemen, ever to exist quiet-
ly and tamely as bondsmen.
Ere concluding his remarks, he desired to say,
that in his own county, among his own people,
and in his own humble way, he had, for years
past, been regarded as a reformer. Great as was
the respect and veneration cherished for those
noble ancestors who had transmitted the present
Constitution under which we had so long and so
happily lived, he thought many and great chang-
es might be effected, conducive to the genera] in-
terest and public welfare. He did not regard the
eoionoe of government as per&oted and finished,
but believed, that like all other sciences, and like
man himself, would be constantly undergoing
improvements — constantly advancing toward that
high state of perfection which was evidently de-
signed by the God of the Universe. Our fathers
bad made great strides and done nobly in their
day— let us show ourselves worthy of such pater-
nity — worthy of their approbation, by seeking a
still more elevated degree of political knowledge.
The instinct of the beast might remain still, but
'twas the province of man and intellect ever to be
moving onward to an higher and loftier sphere.
He was ready to co-operate with gentlemen eve-
ry where in the great work of reform before them.
He was ready to abase the aristocrat and exalt
the people, and to infuse the spirit of equality
into every branch and department of our govern-
ment. But he never could consent to give his
sanction to the principle contained in the amend-
ment of Mr. Presstman, under discussion, even
though gentleman assumed for it the name and
garb of reform. He never could aid in the forging
of chains destined eventually to fetter and bind
the liberties of his own generous and noble con-
stituency.
Mr. BROWN followed in some remarks, which
are withheld for the purpose of his revision, (he
being detained by sickness at home.) The re-
marks will be published as soon as possible.
Mr. SPENCER expressed bis regret, that the de-
bate had taken such a wide range, and that the
subject of representation should have been"
brought into it. For the first time, in his life, he
had heard that the Constitution was to be regard-
ed as a compact, and to be treated in the same
manner as a contract, or agreement between
parties. There were statesmen, who contended
that the Constitution of the United States was a
compact, but no such proposition had ever been
urged in relation to the State Constitutions. In
order to show that this was an incorrect view,
he quoted from Chitty's Blackstone, vol. i, p. 44,
the following definition of the word "compact :"
Law "is a rule of civil conduct prescribed by
the supreme power in a State, commanding what
is right and prohibiting what is wrong." "It is
|
a rule to distinguish it from a compact or agree- >
ment A compact is a promise proceeding from
us — law is a command directing us."
He had looked for other authorities on the
subject, but they were all out of the library — such
as Story, Rawle, Wilson, Madison, and others.
But, if this was to be considered as correct
authority in reference to our political institu-
tions, it will be seen that this Constitution instead
of being a compact, or contract, is a "rule of ac-
tion," prescribed by the supreme power in the
State. If this be the case, how stands the ques-
tion? The gentleman from Baltimore, had of-
fered an amendment which was now before the
the House, a simple, plain, intelligent proposi-
tion. In whom is power vested ? \Vho has the
right to change the Constitution? The people
constitute the supreme power of the State, and
the right is in this supreme power alone, and yet
the assertion is made, that they cannot exercise
their own discretion in effecting the object, ow-
ing to the pompapt oontninpd in the. Constitu-
tion, He could readily understand how, between
different sovereignties, compacts of a binding
force may be made; but the people, by whom our
Constitution was made, being the sovereign
power themselves, cannot bind themselves and
posterity, by any compact in the form of a Con-
stitution. The proposition before the House was
a naked one. The gentleman from Kent has
thrown in an amendment, which entirely destroys
the original proposition. He contends that the
people have not the power to change the Consti-
tution in any other way than in the manner pre-
scribed by the Constitution.
Mr. CHAMBERS explained, that when the gen-
tleman from Baltimore offered his amendment,
he had asked him to explain it. The gentleman
from Baltimore, replied that it was his impres-
sion that the people, without consent of Jaw, in
disregard of the Constitution, in any way, by
any mode, might upset the existing government^
or put in operation a new system, and that this
was the right he intended to recognize, and fcat
those who came after us, could put their own
construction on the article.
Mr. SPENCER stated what he had understood
to be the course of the interrogatory; and then
proceeded to defend the proposition of the gentle-
man from Baltimore, which was to be found em-
bodied in the Constitutions of eighteen of the
States of the Union. What reason then, he
asked, was there to dread its operation in Mary-
land, more than it had been dreaded in other
States ? Was there more of a mob spirit here ? .
Was not the people of our State orderly citizens
abiding by law, and governed by a Constitution ?
Had they not given the strongest evidence of
their love of order, in their long submission to
the old Constitution? How often had the public
will been thwarted by the legislative power? Yet
they had borne the outrages long and quietly.
The amendment of the gentleman from Kent,
involved both an admission and a denial of the
right of the people. It asserts that they have the
right, but provides that they shall only exercise
it in the way prescribed for them, and if they
Use it in any other way, they shall be adjudged
|
