of being indviious, or of distinguishing between
one section and another, gentlemen might meet
as upon a common platform, and give their uni-
ted strength to the accomplishment of the great
object in view. Suppose the Convention should
reject the proposition under consideration, and
the proposition of the gentleman from Charles,
what would be the effect? The Legislature
would say that they had no power to pass such
laws, and they would point to the refusal of this
Convent ion to authorize them, as unerring, evi-
dence of the fact. He earnestly hoped that one
or the other of the two propositions would be
adopted.
Mr. HARBINE said that probably he did not
precisely understand the proposition of the gen-
tleman from St. Mary's, [Mr. MORGAN,] but that
according to his, [Mr. H.'s] construction of it, it
meant one of two things, and that, in either case,
he should feel constrained to vote against it. He
was in favor of such an organic law, as would
not be subject to the whims and caprices, [if he
might so express himself,] of the Legislature. If
the object of the amendment of the gentleman
from St. Mary's was that the Legislature should
have the power to control the organic law after
this Convention should have defined the right of
the citizen in relation to the right of suffrage,
then he [Mr. H.] was opposed to it. If that was
not the object, and it was solely to throw guards
around the right of suffrage, then he would ask,
had not the Legislature got that power already,
without any such provision? He illustrated his
position, and declared his intention to vote
against the amendment.
Mr. WEEMS said he was as much disposed as
any man to throw all proper guards and protec-
tion around the ballot-box. Such a law was
either necessary or not. If it was necessary there
should be no discretion on the part of the Legis-
lature; but it should be made its imperative du-
ty to pass such a law.
If it was not necessary, there was an end of the
question. He was no lawyer, but he was alto-
gether opposed to giving to the Legislature in the
organic law of the State, (by which bounds were
to be set, beyond which the different departments
of the government should not go,) a discretion
which would enable them to enact laws that
might operate locally, unequally, or unjustly.—
He was opposed to both propositions, and should
vote against them; although he was in favor of a
general registry law to prevent frauds. He had
no personal knowledge of frauds, but lie believed
them to exist, not only in the city of Baltimore,
but in the respective counties; and if a Registry
Law would prevent them, he would vote for
such a law, to operate throughout the State and
to leave no discretion. He was either for letting
the thing alone altogether, or for making the
provision imperative and giving the Legislature
no power to repeal it.
Mr. PHELPS rose to make a very few remarks
on the powers of the Legislature, in reply to
what had fallen from the gentleman from Wash-
ington, (Mr. HARBINE.)
Mr. HARBINE said he was speaking of the |
amendment of the gentleman of St. Mary's, (Mr.
MORGAN.)
Mr. PHELPS so understood him. The gentle-
man contended that by the adoption of this amend-
ment, we give the Legislature the right to over-
ride the Constitution. Has not the Constitution
given the power to the Legislature to grant di-
vorces, and to levy taxes; and does not every or-
ganic law grant certain powers to that body, and
reserve other powers? The argument of the
gentleman from Washington may be applied to
all other powers, as well as that which is em-
braced in this amendment. The gentleman from
Calvert, (Mr. WEEMS,) had taken the ground that
it was either necessary to have a registration law,
or unnecessary; and that if necessary, it ought to
be a genera] law, acting uniformly throughout
the State, and might be passed by the Legislature
without a constitutional provision; if it was
not necessary, there was no need to insert any
such provision in the organic law. He reminded
that gentleman that when the Registry Law of
1838 was passed, the question in regard to its
constitutionality was raised, and there was at
least one gentleman in this body who asserted
that it was unconstitutional.
The amendment of the gentleman from St.
Mary's proposes to invest the Legislature with a
limited control over the elective franchise, and
if this Convention now, by a solemn vote, refuse
to grant this power, those who succeed us, must
infer, that any attempt hereafter, by legislative
enactments to prohibit illegal voting, will be an
exercise of power not contemplated by the framers
of the Constitution, and therefore totally
unauthorized.
Mr. SOLLERS said that the question was sim-
ply of a grant of authority to the Legislature
which it either did or did not now possess. He
would like to hear the gentleman from Dorches-
ter, (Mr. PHELPS,) on the power of the Legisla-
ture to pass a Registry Law without a special
grant from the Constitution. He had never heard
the Registry Law of 1838 objected to on the
ground that it was unconstitutional. If the Le-
gislature already have the right to pass such a
law, why is there a necessity for any special
grant of power ? If we do insert such a provi-
sion in the Constitution, the Legislature have the
power without it, and can exercise it when they
think it necessary to do so. He objected to the
change made by the gentleman from Charles in
the original amendment, by the substitution of the
word " may " in the place of " shall," and referred
to the present Constitution to show that the
imperative mood was used in that instrument.—
The change might lead to the inference that cir-
cumstances might occur in which the exercise of
the power would be inexpedient, and such a law
ought not to be enacted. He thought the wisest
course would be to let the matter rest as it is,
and leave it to the Legislature to exercise their
own discretion.
Mr. MORGAN reminded the Convention of the
answer given the ether day, by the gentleman
from Prince George's, that he had always con-
sidered the Registry Law of 1838 unconstitution- |
