Legislature might defeat the call, and thereby
paralize the whole work. This proposition
would not quiet the agitation at all. On the
contrary, it would leave the whole question
open. For this reason he should oppose the
proposition of the gentleman from Calvert, [Mr.
Sollers,] on behalf of the committee, and advo-
cate the proposition of the gentleman from Al-
legany.
The gentleman from Calvert had appealed to
the smaller counties to secure to themselves this
last guarantee, and remnant of power. He, [Mr.
S.] had contented himself during the discussion
by expressing his opinions by his votes. Coming
from a small county, he had been prepared to
compromise with Baltimore and the larger coun-
ties. But he could not remain silent when the
appeal was made by the gentleman from Calvert
to the small counties. He felt that the small
counties were parting with no remnant of power;
that they were fully protected, and that no wrong
had been done to them. The gentleman from
Calvert had said that nothing had been done for
them. Had they not preserved the conservative
representation in the Senate? Was not each coun-
ty in that body equally represented? How could
the Legislature of Maryland pass a law injuring
the smaller counties unless they were treacherous
to themselves and their constituents in the Sen-
ate? The lower House could not of itself pass
any law. The smaller counties could only be
endangered by the sophistry of argument or the
corrupting influence of fraud brought to bear in
the Senate Again, the Convention had determined
that the Legislature should have no power
to appropriate the public money to works of in-
ternal improvement, or to any corporation.
They had determined that no debt beyond
$100,000 should be contracted at any one time,
unless a tax should simultaneously be levied for
its redemption; and that a debt of $50,000 should
only be contracted to relieve the treasury of
temporary embarrassment. They had by a
unanimous vote decided further that the Legislature
should have no right to pass a law interfering
with the relation of master and servant.
They had also protected the elective franchise
against frauds, not only bribery, but false voting
in every respect. This Convention had secured
all these rights.
Mr. SOLLERS explained that his remark had
been predicated upon the supposition, that the
Constitution now being formed would be rejected
by the people.
Mr, SPENCER said;
That he had misunderstood the gentleman, it
was true that the session had been protracted be-
yond all measure, hut the work thus far had been
well done; and notwithstanding the efforts made
against it, which he could not but regret, not-
withstanding the denunciation abroad, he had
no fear but that. the Constitution would be ratified.
If they had done nothing else but to remedy
the abuse of the elective franchise, so much
would have been effected. That right was the
dearest right of freemen, and when abused it |
would go farther to destroy a free government,
than the abuse of any other right. The clamors
against the Convention were unfounded, and he
bad no doubt they would send to the world a
Constitution which would stand the test of time.
Mr. MERRICK made some remarks which will
be published hereafter.
Mr. DONALDSON said, that at the proper time
he should move to amend the. report of the gen-
tleman from Allegany. [Mr. Fitzpatrick,] by ad-
ding at the end thereof, as an additional section,
the following:
" Any amendment to the Constitution and De-
claration of Rights may be proposed in either
the Senate or House of Delegates, and if the
same shall be agreed to by a majority of the
members elected to each of the, two Houses of
the Legislature, the proposed amendment shall
be entered on their journals, with the yeas and
nays taken thereon, and shall be published at
least three months before the next general elec-
tion for members of the House of Delegates; at
which general election the people shall vote for
or against said amendment, in such manner as
may be prescribed by law; and if the majority of
legal voters of the State shall approve of the
said amendment then it shall be the duty of the
Legislature, at its next session, to enact said
amendment as a part of this Constitution,"
Mr. DONALDSON said, the first section of the
report made by the gentleman from Calvert,
[Mr. Sollers,] was identical with the provision
contained in the old Constitution in regard to
amendments. That provision he considered de-
fective, and its operation had not been such as
led him to anticipate any benefits from its re-
enactment. What was that operation? An act
to after the Constitution was passed by one Le-
gislature, and after an election, the next Legisla-
ture incorporated that Act as a part of the Constitution,
without any direct vote of the people
on the particular amendment. It was well known
that a great number of issues were before the
people at every election of delegates, and it was
therefore impossible to ascertain whether any
one of those issues was specially decided by the
result. Then the publication of the amendment
proposed was merely technical; the law was
printed in the volumn of Ads annually passed,
but. not so many as one in a hundred of the peo-
ple were made aware of its existence, nor were
they conscious that in voting for certain dele-
gates they were voting for or against any change
of the Constitution. The consequence had been,
that inconsiderate and improper changes had
been made, which never could have received the
sanction of the people, and which sometimes had
not even received the sanction of a majority of
the members elected to the Legislature. They
had been made by the votes of mere majorities
of quorums.
Mr, D. said, he proposed by his section, that no
amendment should be incorporated into the Con-
stitution unless it first received the votes of a
majority of all the members elected to each
House, and afterward was specially submitted to
the people at a general election and approved by
them. The mere majority of the people could |
