declaration would be a nullity. There is a well
Known destination, however, as to the power we
have over the officers, we may authorize to hold
appointments under this Constitution, and the
power we have to restrain our posterity in the exercise
of the right of self-government. We may
attach conditions to the tenures of these offices
We may declare that a Judge, the Attorney General
of the State, or other officer under this Con-
stitution, shall not take a seat in a future Convention
until he has first resigned his office
And in such a provision there would not be injus-
tice or hardship It would have the effect to put
all members of a future Convention, on a foot-
ing of perfect equality.
For an article in the Constitution having for its
object such an end, he could consistently vote.
He could readily see that the public interest
might require the constant attention of high offi-
cers, such as Judges of our Supreme Court, and
the Attorney General of the State. He did not
object to such functionaries being here, however,
on the ground that they might be interested in
defeating changes in the form of the government.
He would not suppose that any one could be
elected as a member of a body of this character,
who would be intent upon the promotion of his
personal interests only. And agreed with the
gentleman from Kent, (Mr, Chambers,) in sup-
posing that aspirations for offices, had full as
much influence on the conduct of men as the dis-
position to retain offices already held. Believing
this, he (Mr. T.) was not very unwilling to leave
the people of the State at perfect liberty to send
to any future Convention, officers who held com-
missions under the Constitution which was to be
changed. Still he would vote with the gentle-
man from Baltimore city, if he would modify his
amendment so as to make it a limitation on the
tenures of offices we were about to establish.
But be could not vote to incorporate any article
in the Constitution that had for its object a limi-
tation on the power of the people, to change, al-
ter or abolish their form of government whenever
they may think proper to do so, to promote their
safety and happiness.
Mr. CHAMBERS rose merely to remove the impression
which might otherwise be produced, if
no other reasons were assigned, for those who
voted for the amendment, except those assigned
by the gentleman from Frederick, (Mr. Thomas,)
and others who preceded him.
He differed altogether from some of the pro-
position of the gentleman from Frederick, and,
at a proper time, would repeat and enforce
his own opinions in relation to them. He was an
humble advocate of the doctrine that the Consti-
tution could bind the whole community. His ob-
ject was to excuse himself and his friends from
any erroneous inference. There were two sides
to these questions. He did not wish to allow
judgement by default to be entered against him.
After some desultory proceedings,
Mr. BRENT, accepting the suggestion of Mr.
THOMAS, modified his amendment by adding af-
ter the word "Chancellor" the following:
"Attorney General, or of any other civil officer
under the Constitution of this State."

Mr. HICKS now moved the following modified
amendment, to the amendment of Mr. BRENT:
''Nor shall any member of this Convention accept
any office or appointment under the new
Constitution, for ten years after its adoption,"
Mr. HICKS asked the yeas and nays, which
were ordered, and
After some conversation, were taken and re-
sulted as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Chapman, President, Mor-
gan, Lee, Chambers of Kent, Dorsey, Wells,
Kent, Bond, Sollers, Jenifer, Buchanan, Ridge-
ly, John Dennis, Crisfield, Dashiell, Williams,
Hicks, Goldsborough, Eccleston, Phelps, Sprigg,
Dirickson, McMaster, Hearn, Jacobs, Gaither,
Fiery, John Newcomer, Michael Newcomer,
Davis, Shower and Cockey—33.
Negative—Messrs. Dent, Mitchell, Donaldson,
Weems, Dalrymple, Brent of Charles, Merrick,
Bell, Welch, Sherwood of Talbot, Colston, Cham-
bers of Cecil, McCullough, Miller, McLane,
Bowie, Spencer, Thomas, Shriver, Biser, Sap-
pington, Stephenson, McHenry, Magraw, Nel-
son, Carter, Thawley, Hardcastle, Gwinn, Stew-
art of Baltimore city, Brent of Baltimore city,
Presstman, Ware, Kilgour, Anderson, Weber,
Hollyday, Slicer and Ege—33.
So the amendment to the amendment was re-
jected.
The question then recurred upon the amend-
ment as offered by Mr, BRENT, of Baltimore
city.
Mr. THOMAS moved to amend said amendment
by inserting after the word "Chancellor," the
following :
"Attorney General or of any other civil officer
under the Constitution of this State."
Which amendment was accepted by Mr.
BRENT of Baltimore city.
Mr. PARKE was excused from voting, having
paired off for a limited time, (not yet expired,)
with Mr. RICAUD.
The question then recurred on the modified
amendment of Mr. BRENT,
Messrs. BUCHANAN and HICKS asked the yeas
and nays;
Which were ordered.
Mr. THOMAS said:
He had not given—he did not propose to assign
any reasons in support of the opinions he had
expressed, as to our entire want of power to limit
or restrain the people of Maryland, who are to
succeed us, in the exercise of that inalienable
right that exists in all political communities, to
form for themselves a government. He did not
desire to discuss a proposition so universally ad-
mitted to be true in this country. He referred
to an incident in the Virginia Constitutional
Convention of 1829, to show the opinion enter-
tained on that subject by distinguished members
of that body, then present.
At the close of that Convention, one of the
members proposed to insert an article in their
Constitution, giving power to the people of Vir-
ginia to meet by their delegates, in a future Convention.
Mr. John Randolph opposed and ridi-
culed the proposition, saying that the majority
of the people would have that right, without such