position to be interrupted, but was always ready
to hear what any gentleman might say to him.
He desired to ask the gentleman what was the
doctrine to which he referred, as having never
been broached before, since the commencement
of our government.
Mr. C. referred to the proposition he had en-
deavored distinctly to state, that a Constitution
was binding on the whole people, and could not be
changed in a mode prohibited by its own terms, but
only in conformity to a legal provision—in short,
that in this respect the people could bind them-
selves. This had been received as a settled doc-
trine. It was but lately that any one had contro-
verted it. The argument of the gentleman from
Cecil, himself, ended in a proposition to intro-
duce into the Constitution a mode of amending
it—amending it by Conventions.
There was no collision with the sovereign
rights of the people. He termed it a limitation
or restriction of the right, to a particular mode of
amendment. The gentleman from Cecil termed
it a "regulation," by which a particular mode
was to be pursued. The difference seemed to be
verbal, as explained by the gentleman, and he
inclined at pregent to withdraw his own amend-
ment, and allow that of his friend to replace it,
being much more anxious to accomplish the ob-
ject, than to be the author of the resolution.
Agreeing so nearly, in conclusions, he felt no
disposition to assail the arguments by which the
gentleman had arrived at his, though he must say
they were unlike those on which he rested his
own opinions. All the gentlemen who have
taken the opposite view, have reiterated the
sovereign rights of the people. The "eternal
people are immortal," says one gentleman. Yes,
and he might have added, practically invisible
and intangible. Who denies the supreme, sove-
reign, political power of the people? Most cer-
tainly no one on this floor. But may not politi-
cal right, like any other rights be controled, re-
gulated by self-imposed restraints or regulations ?
Why else do we make a Constitution? Why all
this expenditure of time and money ? Is it to
prepare in instrument to be submitted to the
solemn consideration of the whole people, for
their agreement and assent to it, as the terms on
which they will continue the government for all
time? Is all this expensive, tedious and solemn
form of proceeding to be gone through, to pro-
duce a government, and yet in one year, or
month, or week, an irregular unauthorized mass
of men, calling themselves a majority, may de-
cree its termination? Aye, rightfully and
without acting in violation of law, annul and de-
stroy it.
What, sir, is a Constitution ? Why is it pro-
per to have one ? Chief Justice Marshall has said
"a Constitution is framed for ages to come, and
is designed to approach immortality as nearly as
human institutions can approach."—[6 Whea-
ton, 384 Colien on Virginia,] But if this
assemblage can convene at one time, it can at
another. It is said to require no provision for
its terms, mode of organization or action—all
are to be self-imposed, self-decided—all, on an im-
pulse, which may happen in ten years or one—

at any hour of any day. If there was nothing
else to condemn this heresy but its mischievous
consequences, its unmixed evils, these should
make it odious. All the laws of the Great Eter-
nal source of truth, are in beautiful harmony—
all most wisely destined to continue the harmo-
nious action of man, and all creation around him.
The source of infinite order never could be the
birth-place of confusion and strife. He feared
this doctrine came from below, and tended
downward. Wise men and patriots had antici-
pated the difficulties now urged on the other side
as growing out of the concession of the sovereign
power of the people. His friend near him, (Mr.
Donaldson,) had made full reference to the vari-
ous speeches of Mr. Calhoun, to show his utter
abhorence of the doctrine of the absolute, unre-
strained rule of bare majorities. The gentleman
from Cecil, had spoken of the events of Mr. Cal-
houn's life, as weakening his claim to authority,
after 1828. He must be permitted to say, from
personal associations with Mr. Calhoun, to whose
intellectual and high moral worth, he bore the
warmest testimony, that these opinions were not
adopted for the first time after 1828—they were
those which he had always maintained.
He claimed the authority of Judge Story, that
a Constitution should not be altered, but by pre-
vious provision. He read from page 305, sec.
337: ''The understanding is general, if not uni-
versal, that having been adopted by the majority
of the people, the Constitution binds the whole
community, proprio vigore, and is unalterable,
except by the consent of the majority of the peo-
ple, or at least of the qualified voters of the
State.
[Here several gentlemen were seen to laugh
and produced a slight interruption.]
Mr. C. said, wait a moment and instead of
"visum teneatis,"" he might have occassion to
remark "hinc illae laerymae."
Justice Story continues, "in the manner prescribed
by the Constitution, or otherwise provided for by
the majority. Now, " provision " implies pre-
vious arrangement—preparation. It is to be
done by the Constitution, or by the authority of
those who make it. This is precisely the lan-
guage of my amendment, "by the Constitution
or law of the land," and there can be no law of
the land on this subject, but an act of the Legis-
lature authorised by the Constitution. No other
meaning could be attributed to such language.
What sort of legal provision could be made by
this assemblage of people, who were to wield
the sceptre and rule the State ? They, the peo-
ple, had been presented in all sorts of shapes and
described in softest, sweetest phrases, but he had
not yet heard the idea suggested that they were
to become a regular Legislature to pass laws and
make " provision " for changes in the govern-
ment. The very etymology of the word " pro-
vision," implied a " previous " preparation. The
gentleman from Cecil is for " previous provision,"
and his is a more stringent plan. He would not
not allow the Legislature to provide.
Mr. McLANE. "No, it ought to be in the
Constitution itself."