pursuit. He does not say that the people may
not alter the Constitution, except in accordance
with the Constitution and law, but that they may
enjoy the full right of changing it in their own
way; but he recommends it to them, to exercise
their right in a particular manner.
As he understood this proposition of the gentle-
man from Baltimore, after its amendment by the
gentleman from Cecil, if the people of Baltimore
were to call a meeting at the market house,
without any authority or law or public notice for
that purpose, and should make a new Constitu-
tion, and a majority of the people of the State,
being there in attendance, should adopt the Con-
stitution thus formed, it would become the law
of the land. It was said that this inalienable
right of the people, declared in the amendment
of the gentleman from Baltimore, was recognized
in other State Constitutions, and that it did not
imply revolutionary action.
He understood the gentleman from Cecil to
say, that as he understood the amendment of the
gentleman from Baltimore it meant nothing more
than that the people might assemble, but that
their assemblies must be provided for by the then
existing Constitution or some Legislative enact-
ment in conformity thereto. If that was the
view of the gentleman from Cecil, and his
amendment sustained it, he concurred with him;
and would desire that his amendment might be
adopted in order that the public mind might be
relieved on the subject. If the House would
adopt an amendment, by which it is provided
that any change must be made according to the
Constitution, or act of the Legislature passed
for the purpose, the American principle on this
subject would be carried out.
If the the gentleman from Cecil designed to
establish such a course of proceeding, his amend-
ment was wholly inadequate to the accomplish-
ment of his object. It was important to have a
stable government. But if you adopt the amend-
ment of the gentleman from Baltimore, with that
attached to it by the gentleman from Cecil, you
recognize the power in an assembly of the peo-
ple, called without public notice, by the secret
concert of individuals, held, if you please, at the
market house of Baltimore, to change or abolish
the form of government, without complying with
any legal sanction whatever. They may do this,
and in a week after may call another meeting and
have a new Constitution, and thus they may go
on, changing the government, week after week,
and year afteryear. With a government of such
a character, no one would consider himself safe
in living under it. Yet the gentleman from Ce-
cil thinks his proposition sufficient. If the gen-
tleman from Cecil would agree to the modifica-
tion now proposed, he, (Mr. D.,) would acceed
to his amendment and admit its sufficiency. With-
out it, the amendment of the gentleman would be
entirely insufficient. If the gentleman means
that the Constitution shall only be changed in the
manner he proposes, and will so frame his amend-
ment, then he would agree with him. But if it
is intended, as its perusal would indicate, to ad-
mit the principles of the amendment of the gen-
24

tleman from Baltimore, then the gentleman from
Cecil seems rather to recognize than defeat their
object. The original proposition only asserts the
broad principle that the people have the inaliena-
ble right to alter or amend or make a new Con-
stitution; the amendment of the gentleman from
Cecil only points out one way in which this may
be done; it imposes no restriction on the origi-
nal right being exercised by the people in any
other way. The lawless exercise of such a power
was attempted in Rhode Island, where, perhaps,
a bloody war was only prevented by circum-
stances that might not again occur. And it should
be remembered, that some persons, but a few
years past, called a like meeting of the people at
Annapolis, to make a Constitution, and, but for
the vigor of Governor Veazy, there might have
been a civil war here.
If the gentleman from Cecil would adopt the
amendment now offered, prescribing the mode in
which only a change of the Constitution must be
made, he would be highly gratified; otherwise the
gentleman's amendment amounts, only, to a re-
commendation to adopt a particular mode; not ex-
cluding the people from the practice of any mode
they might see fit to select.
The difference of opinion which exists as to
the meaning of the amendment of the gentleman
from Cecil, shows how necessary it is that our
constitutional provisions should be so explicit as
to preclude all contrariety of interpretation upon
the subject; such would be the result of the
amendment I propose, and which the gentleman
from Cecil thinks is, in effect, identical with his
own. My objection to the gentleman's amend-
ment, is, that it will leave the door open for fre-
quent and sudden changes of the Constitution at
the will of a majority of the people, formed un-
der sudden excitement, without time for delibera-
tion or any of the formalities of law. As a com-
promise, he would be willing to take a provision
that the Legislature should prescribe the neces-
sary formula to the convention of the people, or
their representatives. The Legislature, perhaps,
might exert the abstract right without such pro-
vision, but he would prefer making it plain by a
provision in the Constitution. He repeated, that
the amendment of the gentleman from Cecil left
the people free, in their primary assemblies, to
alter, change or abrogate the Constitution, as in
the original amendment of the gentleman from
Baltimore. And the effect would be, that when-
ever Baltimore shall have a population greater
than all the other parts of the State, as must soon
be the case, they may get up a meeting at the
market house, give no notice to the other parts
of the State, and thus change the whole form of
government. At some future period, Baltimore
might thus, in a single day, overthrow the Con-
stitution. This, he would guard against. He
was sorry the gentleman from Cecil would not
unite with him in his effort to do so by accepting
his amendment.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city, said, he felt
a strong temptation to make some remarks, but
he was so anxious that the question should be ta-
ken on these abstract propositions, that he would
again call for the previous question.