in opinion with his friend from Prince George's
on a Constitutional question. Because he adhered. to
his amendment, he had been charged
with being the campion of naturalized citizens.
He was the champion of nobody; he had no political
aspirations, and had the imagination of his
friend been equally free from them, he never
would have made such a charge. He did no more
than that what be deemed his duty, to make the
language of the Constitution go explicit as to prevent
controversy hereafter.
Mr. GRASON said, it seemed to him that, upon
the question before the Convention, gentlemen
on different sides came very nearly to an agree-
ment. For his own part, he agreed in the opin-
ions expressed by the gentleman from Queen
Anne, and also with those expressed on the other
side, because be was satisfied that either term
would answer the purpose. In the Constitution
as it originally stood, the word "citizen of the
United States," or ''citizen of the State" was
not to be found. In that instrument we found the
term used was "persons"-"people"-"freemen."
tut in the year 1810, when the right of suffrage
was extended, there was a provision that every
free white male citizen of the State should be
entitled to vote. That term had stood the test
of forty years without producing a single inconvenience
or difficulty. It appeared to him that
there could not be any objection to its use. He
preferred it because be thought that the dignity
of the State of Maryland would beconsulted by
acting up to the idea that there was such a thing
as a citizen of that State. When the gentleman
from Baltimore county (Mr. RIDGELY) had cited
the provisions of the Constitutions of other States,
he (Mr. G.) had turned to the Constitution of
the State of Virginia, of the history of which he
had some knowledge. The words there were
"every free citizen of the Commonwealth." He
would barely suggest that possibility the words "a
citizen of Maryland," were more appropriate
than the words "a citizen United States."
He should always contemplate with painful
emotions the possibility that there ever could be
a separation of the States' of the Union. But it
might happen that three or four of the States
might withdraw—that there might be a rupture,
or even a peaceable separation. The Convention
was framing a Constitution which, if it should
prove acceptable to the people, and calculated
to promote their honor and interest, might endure
for ages to come. And, looking to the possibility
that either of the events to which he had
alluded might occur, he would prefer that a
term should be used which was applicable to the
people of the State.
Mr. BOWIE and Mr. DORSEY made mutual explanations.
Mr. J. U. DENNIS said, that some of the States
had made negroes citizens, and given them the
light of suffrage. If other States have this pow-
er, it is to be presumed that we have.
The question was then taken on the amendment
of Mr. DORSEY, and the vote was declared
to be yeas 39, nays 30.
Mr. SPENCER suggested that there was a mis-
take in the count (a large number of members |
standing up in a limited space in that extreme
quarter of the hall which immediately fronts
the Committee room.)
Several members called for a re-count.
The CHAIRMAN said, he was sure of the cor-
rectness of the count, but was willing to make a
re-count, if desired by the Committee.
Mr. BRENT called the yeas and nays.
Mr» PHELPS submitted that it was not in order
to call the yeas and nays, after the result of the
vote bad been announced.
Mr. MAGRAW. We were so thick in the cor-
ner here, that we could not get out. (Laughter.)
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city. I will state
the reason why the yeas and nays should be
taken. If the event to which the gentleman has
referred of a dissolution of the Union—
Mr. BUCHANAN. (Interposing.) This is clear-
ly out of order, Mr. CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
has no right to speak on that subject.
Mr. BRENT. I have the right to state the rea-
son why—
Mr. BUCHANAN. Oh! no, you have no such
right.
Mr. JENIFER. If we adopt this principle, why
may not a gentleman get up on every question
and say he distrusts the count of the chair, and
ask the yeas and nays.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair presumes that
every member of this body is an honorable man,
and would not make such a statement unless he
believed it to be true. (Laughter.)
The yeas and nays were then ordered, and
being taken, resulted as follows:
Affirmative.—Messrs. Chapman, President,
Morgan, Blakistone, Dent, Hopewell, Ricaud,
Lee, Chambers, of Kent, Mitchell, Donaldson,
Dorsey, Kent, Weems, Dalrymple, Bond, Brent,
of Charles, Jenifer, Ridgely, John Dennis, James
U. Dennis, Crisfield, Dashiell, Williams, Hod-
son, Goldsborough, Eccleston, Phelps, McCul-
lough, Sprigg, McCubbin, Dirickson, McMaster,
Hearn, Fooks, Jacobs, Annan, Schley, Fiery,
John Newcomer, Harbine, Davis, Waters, Smith,
Parke and Cockey—.46.
Negative.—Messrs. Randall, Buchanan, Chand-
ler, Lloyd, Sherwood, of Talbot, Chambers, of
Cecil, Miller, McLane, Bowie, Tuck, Spencer,
Grason, George, Wright, Shriver, Biser, Sap-
pington, Stephenson, McHenry, Magraw, Nel-
son, Carter, Thawley, Stewart, of Caroline,
Hardcastle, Gwinn, Stewart, of Baltimore city,
Brent, .of Baltimore city, Presstman, Ware,
Neill, Kilgour, Weber, Hollyday, Slicer, Shower
and. Brown—37.
So the amendment was adopted.
The question then recurred upon the amend-
ment as offered by Mr. WEBER.
Mr. BUCHANAN, moved that the Committee
rise.
Determined in the affirmative.
The Committee accordingly rose, the Presi-
dent resumed the Chair, and the Chairman re-
ported that the Committee had in obedience to
order, had the said report again under considera-
tion, and had come to no conclusion thereon.
And the Convention adjourned until to-morrow
morning eleven o'clock.. |
