people constitute the supreme power. And is
there anything novel in such a doctrine ? Do
not the authorities all sustain it? Is it not the
doctrine of the first and best men of the country ?
Was it not endorsed by the statesmen of the revolu-
tion ? It is the foundation on which our whole
system rests. It is the rock on which he rested
all his faith. By what authority are we now
convened in this Convention? Is it not by virtue
of the will of the majority? Will any one say
that we are assembled in Convention, under the
Constitution? Certainly the gentleman from
Kent, will not say so, for he looks to the majority
of the people to sanction what we may do, and to
acquiessence by the government to give it validity.
Has the spirit of insubordination exhibited itself
here? Are we the creatures of the mob? And if we,
the representatives of the people, can thus as-
semble to deliberate peacefully on the change of
government, and the formation of a new organic
law, what right have we to distrust the same quiet
exercise of the same power in future ? Thrice
have the people of this State, met in Convention,
above and without any constitutional provisions
to guide them. Amidst the war of the revolu-
tion, they framed the Constitution under which,
with alterations, we have lived to the present.
In 1788, the ratified, in Convention, the Consti-
tution of the United States, And they have
again met in this Convention. Each and all of
these Conventions were by virtue of the supreme
power of the. people. In each case it was dis-
creetly and prudently exercised. Why then dis-
trust the prudence of the people ? I have no fear
of the result. He would then unhesitatingly sup-
port the amendment of his friend, (Mr. Presst-
man.) And he would, with equal pleasure, sup-
port the amendment of the gentleman from Cecil,
(Mr. McLane.)
The first amendment asserts the right of the peo-
ple, and the second declares it to be our duty to
provide a remedy, for the exercise of the right.
This was what he desired. He was for indica-
ting and following the mode prescribed in the
Constitution. It was convenient and desirable,
and he had no doubt would prove satisfactory to
the people—the whole people. To the amendment
of the gentleman from Kent, he was opposed,
'because, whilst it admits the right, it fetters it
in its exercise. In the same breath that it ad-
mits, it denies and restricts it.
Mr. BRENT of Baltimore city, said, he had de-
sired and intended to have submitted some re-
marks. But as he supposed that the Convention
must be wearied of the long discussion which
had taken place on this question, he would forego
his right, and call for the previous question.
Mr. MCLANE enquired of the chair, what the
main question would be.
The PRESIDENT replied, that the pending ques-
tion was on the amendment of the gentleman
from Kent, (Mr. Chambers.)
Mr. MCLANE. I can only say that if that pro-
position should not prevail, I shall offer the
amendment which I indicated on Friday last.
Some conversation followed when, for pur-
poses of explanation,

Mr. BRENT withdrew the demand for the pre-
vious question.
Mr. CHAMBERS of Kent, withdrew his amend-
ment for the purpose of enabling the gentleman
from Cecil, (Mr. McLane,) to offer the propo-
sition he had indicated.
Mr. C. in withdrawing the amendment, gave
notice that he should vote for the amendment of
the gentleman from Cecil, (Mr. McLane,) with
the intention, after that had been adopted, of vot-
ing against the whole proposition.
So the amendment of Mr. CHAMBERS was
withdrawn.
And therefore, the question recurred on the
amendment of Mr. PRESSTMAN.
Mr. MCLANE then moved to amend that
amendment, by adding at the end thereof, the
following:
"Provision ought therefore to be made in the
Constitution now to be formed, whereby the ex-
ercise of such right, at reasonable periods, and in
Conventional Assemblies, would be secured and
regulated."
Mr. PRESSTMAN accepted this amendment, as
a modification of his own proposition.
Mr. JENIFER said, he had intended to vote for
the amendment of the gentleman from Cecil,
(Mr. McLane,) and then to vote against both
propositions. He also intended to vote against the
amendment of the gentleman from Kent, (Mr.
Chambers,) because he, (Mr. J.) believed the
whole provision to be in the bill of rights.
Mr. DORSEY proposed to offer an amendment
upon which he was proceeding to make some
remarks—
Mr. BRENT of Baltimore city, submitted that
the previous question had been withdrawn by
him, not for the purpose of general discussion,
but for explanation merely.
Mr. DORSEY yielded the floor.
Mr. BRENT moved the previous question.
And the question having been taken the Con-
vention refused to second the demand for the
previous question.
The question then recurred on the modified
amendment of Mr. PRESSTMAN.
Mr. DORSEY then offered the following as an
amendment to the modified amendment of Mr.
PRESSTMAN.
Insert after the words "they have," in the first
line the following: "according to the mode pre-
scribed in this Constitution, and the laws made
in pursuance thereof.''
Mr. DORSEY desired to say a few words on the
subject of his amendment. The amendment of
the gentleman from Cecil did not, in his opinion,
accomplish the object which that gentleman, as
he understood him, professed to have in view
The proposition he now offered, was restriction
of the manner in which the Constitution might
be amended. He asked the gentleman from Ce-
cil if it was acceptable to him. (Mr. McLane
indicated his dissent.) He understood that it
was not. He knew not why, unless the gentle-
man from Cecil was aiming at a different object
from that of which he supposed him to be in the