|
poses, a majority of the commuNitT hath an indubi-
table, inalienable ana indefeasible right to reform,
alter or abolish ii in sucA manner as sAall be judged
most conducive to the public want.
This provision was again adopted in Virginia
in the bill of rights of 1830.
In the Convention of Virginia a proposition was
made to engrrft a clause on the Constitution, pro-
viding for its future amendment. This was re-
jected on the ground that a majority of the people
had the power at any time, and in any manner they
pleased, to amend tkeir Constitution, or to make a
new one.
Among those voting against the provision, were
James Madison and John Marshall.
Some conversation followed on a point of
order, in which Messrs. BRENT, of Baltimore,
SPENCER and the PRESIDENT, took part.
Mr. SPENCER then proceeded to remark, that
lie should vote in favor of the proposition of the
gentleman from Cecil, (Mr. McLane,) and he,
(Mr. S.) maintained the proposition of the gen-
tleman from the city of Baltimore, (Mr. Presst-
man,) in all its integrity. He should go further
than that gentleman, according to the views he
had submitted this morning. He was in favor
of the proposition of the gentleman from Cecil,
(Mr. McLane,) because it declared it to be the
duty of the Convention to carry out that great
cardinal principle, which lay at the foundation of
all government. The mode pointed out by the
gentleman from Cecil, was good, and should re-
ceive the approbation of every member — cer-
tainly every reform member of the Convention.
Mr. SPENCER said he did not intend to go into
any elaborate argument. He should vote with
aH his heart for the amendment of the gentle-
man from Cecil, and for the proposition of the
gentleman from Baltimore, [Mr. Presstman ]
• He desired also to add a few authorities to those
which had been brought forward by the gentle-
man from Baltimore county, [Mr. Buchanan.]
He then proceeded to read extracts from No. 84
of the Federalist, from Judge Story's commen-
taries, and from Davis' abridgement, for the pur-
pose of sustaining the position, concerning the
meaning of compact and the right of the people
to alter, amend or abolish their form of govern-
ment. He had cited these authorities to sustain
the position he had started in the beginning of
this debate.
Mr. MITCHELL begged leave to ask the gentle-
man from Queen Anne's, a single question. That
gentleman, as well as himself, represented one
ofthe small counties of the State. Was the gen-
tleman prepared to throw the whole power of
the State, into the hands of the people of Balti-
more ?
Mr. SPENCER replied that he had no fear of
the power of Baltimore, or of her hostility to the
counties. He was of opinion that whenever
Baltimore should attempt to exercise a power
over the counties, she would find in the counties
power and energy enough, to oppose an effectual
resistance to the attempt. The fact of the exis-
tence of a city like Baltimore in the State, did
|
not draw him off from the republican faith. He
was proud of such a city, and if the gentleman,
who was from a smaller county, had a smaller
share of that faith, it could not be helped. He
hoped that the gentleman was answered.
Mr. MITCHELL. I am answered.
Mr. SPENCER resumed, in conclusion. He had
not intended, when he rose, to make a speech.
He would only add, that he intended to vote for
the amendment ofthe gentleman from Cecil; and
whenever it should be necessary for him to do so,
he was ready to defend the position he had
taken.
Mr. CHAMBERS said nothing was more impor-
tant, in all controversies, than a distinct state-
ment and understanding of the exact points in
issue. From what was passing around us, he
was led to think we were in great danger of
fighting shadows. He very much regretted the
apparent unwillingness of gentleman, to explain
their positions precisely. It had even been said
to be "unfair," to ask gentlemen distinctly to
explain the object and design of their proposi-
tions submitted for our action. He regarded such
notions as utterly out of place here.
Our proper duty here was to form such a
Constitution, as would best secure to the people
of Maryland — the whole people — the full and
safe enjoyment of life, liberty and property, for
all time, and not to elevate one class or party in the
community, and depress another. Its provisions
should be not only just and equal, but as plain
and intelligible, and as free from doubt or ob-
scurity as possible, so that those who administer
the Government, and all intelliaent persons, may
comprehend its import. It would be a poor boon
to the State, if our labors resulted in an instru-
ment calculated to produce doubts and difficul-
ties, and expensive litigations. He adverted to
the history of this debate. When the section in
the bill of rights, reported by the committee,
which declares in the most expressive terms, the
supreme sovereignty of the people, as the source
of all political power, and their right to control
and alter the government, was under considera-
tion, the resolution now before the chair, was
offered by the gentleman from Baltimore, [Mr.
Presstman.] He had not perceived the neces-
sity for any additional declaration of the kind,
and enquired ofthe gentleman why he considered
it requisite. To this it was answered that the
object was to introduce the doctrine, distinctly
avowed as his creed, that the majority of tha
people, at any time, in any mode they pleased,
and without any previous constitutional or legal
provision — nay, against and in opposition to con-
stitutional or legal provision, could remodel the
government or form a new one. Against this,
doctrine he had entered his solemn protest, and
had ventured to read the first article of the pre-
sent bill of rights, which declared that "all gov-
ernment is founded in compact only and insti-
tuted solely for the government of the whole."
Another genUemmn from Baltimore, [Mr. Brent,]
had controverted the doctrine of his colleague,
so far as related to the necessity of some legal
provision, declaring the mode of proceeding. A
gentlemen from Queen Anne's, [Mr. WrigEl,] in,
|
