|
It was the duty of the Government to give a
pioper control and direction to popular excite-
ment, and to keep it always in the bounds of or-
der. They did not accomplish, by what was
called "the doctrine of acquiesence." This was
certainly a strange creed. He could understand
the consistency of a doctrine which recognizes
the right of the people to reform their govern-
ment, and which declared, that all offices created
by The old Constitution were ear-necessitate vacat-
ed, when the people established a new order of
things. But he could not understand this doc-
trine of assent, by the officers of the old Govern-
ment, to an order of things which they believed
illegally ordained. The judges under the present
Constittution might resign, but if they thought
that the new officers were chosen in contraven-
tion of that authority which they had sworn to
sustain, how could they acquiesce? And even
if they did, how could they do more than resign,
and leave their office vacant indeed, but still in
legal existence. Acquiescence in the existing
government, if it believes that its authority was
encroached upon, or unduly subverted, might be
treason to the Constitution — but it could be noth-
ing more. The difficulties of the creed held by
gentlemen on the other side were inevitable.
Mr. PRESSTMAN followed in some remarks, a
report of which is withheld for revision.
Mr. BUCHANAN said, he did not design to
trouble the Convention with any remarks at this
time. He thought that the question would come
up hereafter. But he felt it his duty, before his
friend from Kent, (Mr. Chambers.) proceeded
with his remarks, to exhibit to him certain
authorities, from ^ie examination of which he,
(Mr. B.) had come to the conclusion that there
was no doubt whatever, of the correctness of the
doctrine set forth in the amendment of the gen-
tleman from Baltimore city, (Mr. Presstman.)
He, (Mr. B.) had come to the conclusion, from
a full examination of those authorities, that the
people had an undoubted, an inalienable, and in-
defeasible right to amend their Constitution at
any time, and in any manner they might think
proper; and he would go further and say, on
authority, that this was an inalienable right, of
which it was doubtful, whether or not, the peo-
ple could even divest themselves, if they desired
to do so. He agreed with the gentleman from
Baltimore city, (Mr. Presstman,) that it was not
important, so far as the rights of the people were
concerned, whether a provision was embraced
, in the Constitution, authorizing the people at
specified times, to reform their Constitution or
not. He, (Mr. B.) would vote for such a provi-
sion. Still it was {urimportant. The people
could do this th.ing, by virtue of their inherent
sovereignty. Now, although the doctrine seem-
ed to be broad, and although he could not, until
he had examined the authorities, go to the ex-
tent to which he would now go, yet he had come
to the conclusion, that this power did exist in
the people, no matter what the Constitution
might say. Under monarchical governments, the
absolute sovereignty rested in the monarch, but
with us the sovereign authority was in the peo-
ple; and if the people themselves — a majority o:
|
the people — should at any time think it expedient
to remodel their form of Government, they had
a right to do it non obstante, any other power
upon earth.
Mr. JENIFER. Does the gentleman mean to
say, that if a provision should be inserted in the
new Constitution, declaring that hereafter the
Constitution may be altered !>y a Convention,
and that Constitution should be ratified by the
people, does the gentleman say, that notwith-
standing that article, the people may, through all
time, and without a revolutionary movement,
change their government?
Mr. BUCHANAN. At any time. The people —
a majority of the people — have at all times the
right to remodel or change their government.
Mr. SOLLERS. How is that majority to be as-
certained 7
Mr. BUCHANAN. That is a matter for their
consideration.
One word, (Mr. B. said,) as to what might he
regarded as the sentiment of the people of the
United States, on the subject. There were
some twenty-four States which embraced, sub-
stantially, this very doctrine in their Constitu-
tions— most of them, the very words. But he
rested on the example of that proud old State of
Virginia — he rested upon a principle which was
there promulged by Marshall. Madison and
Monroe, and their compatriots in the Convention
which formed the Constitution of '76, where
phraseology, even stronger than that of his
friend from Baltimore city, (Mr. Presstman,)
had been employed. The original Constitution
of Virginia, asserted the inalienable right of a
majority of the people — not the aggregate people
— but of a majority of the people to remodel and
change their government. That doctrine had
been ratified and re-affirmed by the Convention
of '30. The same principle had been adopted
by Texas, Florida, and Iowa.
Mr. B. then read the following authorities,
which he handed to the Reporter, as a substi-
tute for his intended argument.
The Declaration of Independence^ —
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that
all men are created equal; that they are endowed
by their Creator with certain inalienable rights;
among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of t
happiness. That to secure these rights, govern-
ments are instituted among men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed; that
when any form of government becomes destruc-
tive of these ends, it is the riglu of the people to al-
ter or abolish it, and to institute a new govern-
ment, laying its foundation on such principles,
and organizing its power in such forms, as to
them shall seem most likely to effect their safety
and happiness."
Mr. Jefferson sajs :
"It is not only the right, but the duty of those
now on the stage if action, to change the laws and
institutions of government, to keep pace with the
progress of knowledge, the. light of science, and
the amelioration of the condition of society.
Nothing is to be considered unchangeable, but
the inherent and inalienable rights of man."
|
