3rd. Vermont—article 7th, Constitution.
4th. Connecticut—article 3d, do.
5th. New Jersey—article 2d, do.
6th. Virginia—article 3d, do.
7th. Indiana—article 2d, do.
He would not detain the Convention by read-
ing the Constutitions of the several States. They
would be found, in very many cases, to embody
the very language submitted by his friend. It was
too late to question adoctrine so true, and which
constitutes the very foundation stone, on which
our whole republican system of government is
built. But the gentleman from Kent, is afraid
that it may be abused, and that popular frenzy
may become excited. Has it produced any evil
in the other States of the Union? Why is it that
such danger is to be apprehended in Maryland ?
The gentleman has said that there was no
authority to sustain the doctrines that the people
have the right to remodel their government, ex-
cept in the mode prescribed in the Constitution;
that no statesman had contended for such a
proposition. To shew that the gentleman was
wrong, he referred to the following authorities:
Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of
the United States, section 337, in speaking of our
State Constitutions, says; "The understanding is
general, if not universal, that having been adop-
ted by the majority of the people, the Constitu-
tion of the State binds the whole community,
proprio vigore; and is unalterable unless by the an-
sent of the majority of the people, or at least of
the qualified voters of the State, in the manner
prescribed by the Constitution, or otherwise
provided for, by the majority."
Mr. Rawle, who is another distinguished wri-
ter on the same subject, says: "The people re-
tains—the people, perhaps, cannot divest itself
of the power to make such alterations. If a par-
ticular mode of effecting such alterations be
agreed on, it is most convenient to adhere to it,
but it is not exclusively binding."
Judge Wilson, says: "Permit me to mention
one great principle—the vital principle I may
well call it, which diffuses animation and vigor
through all others—the principle, I mean, is this,
that the supreme or sovereign power of society,
resides in the citizens at large, and that there-
fore they always retain the right of abolishing,
altering or amending the Constitution at what-
ever time, and in whatever manner they may
deem expedient." And again he says, "As to
the people, however, in whom the sovereign
power resides, from their authority the consti-
tution originates; for their safety and felicity it
is established; in their hands it is as clay in the
hands of the potter."
Mr. Madison, in his report upon the Virginia
resolutions of 1798, says: "The authority of
Constitutions over governments, and of the sove-
reignty of the people over Constitutions, are
truths which are always to be kept in view. "
Mr. CHAMBERS here said, that at the outset he
had said and now repeated, that he did not deny the
inherent right of the people, and that it was the
bounden duty of this Convention, to introduce
into the Convention, some provision by which,

without doubt or difficulty, a convenient mode
for the assembling of future Conventions might
be designated.
Mr. SPENCER. Then why object to the inser-
tion of the doctrine of right in the people, in this,
its proper place? Why clog it with restrictions ?
We are now laying down the platform of a Re-
publican government. There was nothing in the
doctrine which would prevent us from prescrib-
ing a mode for calling Conventions in future.
He advocated such a course. But he would
never consent to place the Constitution in the
hands of the Legislature. This was the ground
on which he stood before the people of his
county.
The authorities which he had quoted were
right up to the point. They are too clear to re-
quire elucidation. The commonest mind can
understand them. Story says, the Constitution
may he altered in the manner presribed in it, or
otherwise prescribed by the majority. Then, ac-
cording to him, it may be done in a manner other
than that in the Constitution. If so, how? In a
manner prescribed for by a majority of the qualified
voters. And on this point Mr. Story is fully sus-
tained by Mr. Rawle, who says, if a particular
mode be agreed on, it is most convenient to adhere
to it, but it is not exclusively binding, Let it not
then be said by the gentleman, that we are con-
tending for a principle, new and unheard of—
one unsustained by authority.
The gentleman has asked, as has also the gen-
tleman from Anne Arundel, (Mr. Donaldson,) his
friend Mr. PRESSTMAN, how the government is to
be altered by the act of the people, unaided by a
constitutional provision, or a legal enactment
He says he likes to meet an intelligible proposition.
Is there any obscurity in this? "He who runs may
read." His, (Mr. Spencer's,) friend had answered
with sagacity, that it was not for him to indicate
how the people were to carry out and exercise
their power. That would be determined when
the crisis arose. He would, however, refer the
gentlemen from Kent and Anne Arundel to Sto-
ry to settle their difficulty. The gentleman from
Anne Arundel had asked whether the whole peo-
ple were to be consulted, whether women were.
to vote, and who was to fix and determine the
capacity of voters, the question of age and incom-
petency from idiocy, infamy or other cause ?
Judge Story, in sect. 337 of his commentaries,
says, " Every State, however organised, embra-
ces many persons in it who never assented to its
form of government, and many who are deemed
incapable of such assent, and yet, who are held
bound by its fundamental institutions and laws.
Infants, minors, married women, persons insane,
and many others, are deemed subjects of a coun-
try and bound by its laws, although they have
never assented thereto, and may, by those very
laws, be disabled from such an act."
And again, in the same section, he says, " a
majority only of the qualified voters is deemed
sufficient to change the fundamental institutions
of the State, upon the general principle, that the
majority has at all times a right to govern the
minority, and to bind the latter to obedience to
the will of the former, "