As to the amendment of the gentleman from
Kent, it was precisely the 59th article of the old
Constitution. It re-enacts that article without
the restriction in the 42nd article of the bill of
rights.
Mr. CHAMBERS interposed a remark, that this
was a total misapprehension of his purpose. He
thought it proper that the mode of changing the
Constitution should be specified. But when the
gentleman from Carroll says, that the proposition
is restrictive in its effect, the gentleman from
Carroll attributed to him a purpose he never in-
tended.
Mr. BROWN, in conclusion, stated that he mere-
ly spoke of the effect of the amendment—of the
intention of the gentleman from Kent, he would
say nothing. It did, in effect, say to the people,
"thus far shalt thou go, but no further." If it
were to be adopted now, it would be rendered
nugatory in its operation, before a new genera-
tion would pass away. He looked upon it as
merely a re-enactment of the 59th article. This
was all he proposed to say, and he had not in-
tended to say this; but after the hard blows he
had received from the gentlemen on the other
side, he could not remain silent.
Sketch of the Remarks of Mr. PRESSTMAN, Feb. 3,
On his amendment to the Bill of Rights, as to the
right of the people to alter their form of gov-
ernment, &c.
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent, again took: the floor,
but said that if there was any gentleman who
adopted the views of the gentleman from the
city of Baltimore, [Mr. Presstman,] and the gen-
tleman from Cecil, [Mr. McLane,] and who de-
sired to be heard, he, [Mr. C.] would cheerfully
yield the floor.
Mr. PRESSTMAN said, he desired to say a very
few words, in order to put himself right before
the Convention. It was not his intention again
to trespass upon its time. All he desired was
that, before the gentleman from Kent, [Mr.
Chambers,] proceeded with his remarks, he
should understand precisely the position which
he, [Mr. P.] intended to take at the commence-
ment.
As he had heretofore stated, the amendment
he introduced embodied precisely the same lan-
guage as that contained in the bill of rights of
several of the States of the Union, and he would
now frankly state to the Convention, that the
views which had been presented, in part, upon
his side, were not the views which he designed
to hold at the commencement of the debate.
He intended to say that if the amendment should
be adopted, following, as it did, the form of the
Virginia bill of rights, and of the bills of rights of
Maine, and other States, there should be no
provision in any manner in the Constitution,
which was about to be made, prescribing any
particular mode in which that Constitution should
be changed.
It would, therefore, be in harmony with his
idea, that hereafter, in forming a Constitution,

no mode should be pointed out by which it should
be changed. It was not necessary for him, in
the view which he designed to present, to assert
the doctrine that the right was to be exercised
against the particular forms of the Constitution
which might or might not be adopted. On that
point, he had as yet reserved his opinion.
If the amendment of the gentleman from Ce-
cil, (Mr. McLane,) should be brought to a vote,
he, (Mr. P.,) might feel himself constrained to
vote for it; not because he had abandoned the
ground which he had originally taken, but be-
cause there was not one single word in that
amendment which denied the principle of his
own . If there were, he would vote against it.
He understood that amendment to be a mere as-
sertion that the right exists, and to point out a
mode in which that right may be exercised on
the score of expediency. If the gentleman from
Cecil had, in any degree, denied that right, he,
(Mr. P.,) repeated that he could not have voted
for the amendment. He did not now pledge
himself to do so—nor would he, until he had
heard the discussion. If, however, he should do
so, he meant it to be understood, that he voted
for it as a compromise, looking to conventional
reform; and if it did not contain the germ of con-
ventional reform as contra-distinguished from le-
gislative reform, he would not vote for it under
any circumstances. He wished, therefore, that
the gentleman from Kent, ( Mr. Chambers, )
should bear in mind that although gentlemen
had charged him, (Mr. P.) with setting up the
doctrine of the right of the people, short of the
revolutionary right, to change their government
in a manner different from, and in violation of the
mode pointed out by the Constitution, he never
had asserted that doctrine, as it was unnecessary
for him to do so. He had proposed his amend-
ment in the event of no mode being pointed out in
the Constitution, and leaving it, therefore, to {he
people to provide a mode for themselves. He
did not hold with his colleague, (Mr. Brent,) nor
with the gentleman from Cecil, (Mr. McLane,)
that there was no mode by which the people
could adopt a new Constitution, except accord-
ing to provision made by the Legislature. The
doctrine which he maintained, he held to be iden-
tical with that upon which some gentlemen had
contended that they held their seats here, that is
to say, the general acquiesence of the people, in-
dependent of legislative acts.
WEDNESDAY, February 5th, 1851.
The Convention, pursuant to its order of yes-
terday, met this day at 11 o'clock.
Prayer was made by Rev. Mr. GRIFFITH.
The journal of yesterday having been read,
Mr. WEBER. moved so to amend it as to state the
fact that he had called the yeas and nays on the
motion of the gentleman from Calvert, (Mr.
Weems,) that the hour of meeting be eleven
o'clock.
Some conversation followed.