harmony. And he would ask the gentleman
from Kent to look at the reason which lay at
the people to vote whether or not they would
have a Convention; there could be no evasion of
this duty.
Mr. SPENCER said:
That during the debate which had occurred on
the fourth of February, he had expressed his
opinion that the people have the inalienable right
at anytime to alter, change or modify their government
at pleasure, and the reasons for that
opinion; and he should advocate the adoption in
this Constitution of a provision for taking the
sense of the people upon the subject of calling a
Convention. He considered that question as already
settled by a vote of the Convention adopt-
ing an article in the bill of rights to that ex-
press effect, as would be found by reference to
the journal pp. 267, 280 and 281. That provision
had been carried by a vote of forty to twenty-
eight, declaring that at reasonable periods the
sense of the people ought to be taken.
The gentleman from Kent, [Mr. Chambers]
had then stated that he would advocate the in-
corporation into the Constitution of a provision
of this kind in order that the public mind might
be settled, and to prevent anxious disputation in
the future. He had this morning re-affirmed that
declaration.
He (Mr. S.,) would not enter into the ab-
stract question of the importance of adjusting
this question, after what had been said by the
gentlemen from Kent and Baltimore counties.
The only question now was, how to carry out
the measure.
He had voted against the proposition of the
gentleman from Baltimore city, [Mr. Brent,] because
he considered the calling of a Convention
necessarily legislative in its character; and the
legislature could more conveniently carry out
the intention, without any interposition on the
part of the Governor.
He did not fear to trust the legislature of Maryland
with the discharge of a duty imperatively
required by the Constitution. If it were left discretionary
with the legislature, as in the proposition
of the gentleman from Calvert, (Mr. Sol-
lers,) he would not assent to it, because as a
matter of discretion it would become a subject
of political agitation and excitement in the hands
of the legislature.
He. agreed with the proposition of the gentle-
man from Frederick, (Mr. Thomas,) that the
Governor was no more to be trusted in the
discharge of a political or executive duty than
any other man.
The gentleman from Baltimore county, (Mr.
Howard,) had said, that we could only settle this
question upon abstract principles, and that we
had no light of experience to guide us. He was
mistaken; we were not left in the dark upon this
subject. Very many of the States of this Union,
and some of the older ones from the very first.
had recognised this right; and wherever it had
been recognised, there had been less agitation
than in those States where the question had been
left unsettled by the Constitution. |
He would refer to the Constitutions of Massachusetts,
Vermont, New York, Indiana and oth-
er States. He referred to the American Constitution
pp. 59, 91, 122, 284. He would then advocate
the measure not only as one of abstract
justice, but as a plain measure, which would en-
sure stability, where before there had been
clamor, turbulence, and excitement in regard to
a change.
The first question before the Convention would
be upon the proposition of the gentleman from
Carroll, (Mr. Brown,) a proposition which
would meet with his hearty concurrence. In
providing for the calling of a Convention, it was
necessary to fix upon a basis for that Convention,
and he considered the basis proposed as being
wise and discreet.
Whatever settlement might now be made of
the question, ought to be the basis of any future
Convention which should assemble. He was
happy to say that many members of this body
who had opposed the compromise, and who de-
sired a representation according to population,
had declared that if the next Convention should
be called upon the basis of representation established
by this Convention, it would obviate one
of their strongest objections to the adoption of
that compromise for the settlement of the question.
Those expressions had afforded him pecu-
liar pleasure, as they seemed to make manifest
the mode of adjusting this heretofore perplexing
question.
That proposition however was but an amendment
to the proposition of the gentleman from
Allegany, (Mr. Fitzpatrick,) which he consi-
dered to be in strict conformity with and in ex-
ecution of the decision of February 4th. It pro-
vided that at certain stated periods the question
should be submitted to the people whether or not
a new Convention should be called. The proposition
was to carry out the declaration in the bill
of rights, to establish the peace measure, and to
secure to the people that which the bill of rights
affirmed they should possess. The proposition
of the gentleman from Allegany left no discretion
to the Legislature. It was imperious: and
in that proposition every thing was effected
which it was necessary to effect. It would go
further towards securing the adoption of this
Constitution by the people than any other provi-
sion which could be adopted in it. He would
therefore appeal to all members who desired a
harmonious conclusion of this question, to sustain
this measure.
But this proposition was offered as a substitute
for the report of the committee. The first pro-
position in the report was that the Legislature
by acts passed at two consecutive sessions should
have the power of amending the Constitution.
Against this proposition he was as fully committed
as upon any other point, before his constituency.
I was unnecessary to refer to the expe-
rience of the past or to argue this proposition.
His opinion had been already fully given upon it.
The second part of the proposition authorised
the Legislature to call a Convention, leaving it
wholly discretionary with them, and if one
Legislature should be in favor of it, the next |
