not originate amendments, but would be called
upon to confirm or reject those proposed by the
Legislature. With these checks there could be
no amendment carelessly passed, or carried by
mere intrigue with pliable legislators.
The second section of the original report, [ Mr.
Sollers'.] provided that a Convention might be
called by the Act of two successive Legislatures.
This, as far as it was intended for a check on the
power of calling Conventions, seemed to him utterly
futile. There was in our existing Constitution
a provision, that it should be amended so no
other manner than that prescribed by the instrument
itself. An yet, in the very face of that
prohibition the last Legislature had, by a single
act, called this Convention, and in pursuance of
that call we were here now. No one doubted
that such a Convention might have been constitutionally
called by the Act of two successive
Legislatures; yet, the popular sentiment seeming
to demand it, the barriers imposed were broken
through. The same thing might happen again,
and be preferred that no such prohibition should
exist, only to be violated.
He was therefore opposed to the whole of the
report of the gentleman from Calvert, [Mr. Sollers.]
He was in favor of the substitute offered
by the gentleman from Allegany, [Mr. Fitzpatrick.]
which provided for taking the sense of the
people, after certain fixed periods of time, in relation
to calling a Convention. He much pre-
ferred, however, that the periods should be twenty
instead of ten years. The great object was to
avoid agitation. The agitation often arose from
uncertainty as to the true sentiment of the peo-
ple; politicians got up a factitious public opinion,
and by concerted clamor produced an appearance
of general excitement, by which many were
deceived. If the sense of the people were regularly
rested on this point, there could be no mis-
representation in regard to it, and all the agitation
which grew out of the doubt concerning the
public opinion would be at an end. He did not
apprehend that Conventions would be oftener
held with than without such a provision in our
Constitution. He was inclined to look upon it
as conservative in its nature. It seemed to him,
however that some changes in our Constitution
might become desirable, which yet would not be
of sufficient importance to authorise the call of a
Convention. A Convention was attended with
enormous expense, and would scarcely be resorted
to, except when radical and extensive alterations
were in contemplation. We had already
engrafted a great deal of new matter into our
Constitution, and it was not likely that every
part of it would prove perfect in practice. The
propriety and necessity of some amendment might
soon become manifest and serious inconvenience
would perhaps be produced by the want of some
amendatory power in the Legislature. For this
reason he would offer the section he had read,
which was not inconsistent, with the report of
the gentleman from Allegany, but merely supple-
mentary.
Mr. SOLLERS. As to the "futility" of the second
proposition of his report, he would ask whether
the proposition of the gentleman from Allegany |
was not equally so. If the people had an inher-
ent right to call a Convention to change the Constitution,
why would not one mode of calling the
Convention be just as futile as another. The dif-
ference between his article and that in the present
Constitution, was that his article affirmed
the right to call a Convention, which the other
did not. Gentlemen seemed to treat his proposition
as something void and unheard of—some-
thing in relation to which they had had no expe-
rience. They had had the experience of more
than sixty years, during which the only changes
in the Constitution had been made under that article.
They had lived under the Constitution for
nearly seventy-one years, without complaint ex-
cept from agitators; and this Convention had
been called by a minority of the people of Mary-
land. Up to this very instant there was no evidence
of the approval by the public, of a single
measure adopted by the Convention. Gentlemen
worked to quiet agitation. The way to quiet it
was by legislative enactments; and seventy years
experience would show this to be true. By periodical
arrangements, the people would be compelled
to agitate the question whether a change
was desired or not. A government, of all sorts
of machinery, was that which was most difficult
for human hands and human skill to form. If a
single spring was loose, or a wheel out of place,
it would stop the whole machinery. Yet it was
proposed to bear it for ten long years, no matter
what the grievance might be. His own proposition
would prevent this delay.
The gentleman from Queen Anne, (Mr. Spencer.)
had accused him of having made an appeal
to the lower counties. He would repeat that appeal.
There had been a time when all the counties
of the Eastern Shore could have been appealed
to. In his opinion the interests of those
counties had been abandoned by members from
those counties. He would bring no charge
against others, but he would say that if he had
agreed to the compromise which deprived his
own county of a portion of its political power, his
conscience would have written upon his brow—
"traitor." The Senate, like members of this
Convention, might abandon the interests of the
lower counties. He would not trust them.
Mr. DONALDSON said, his remark had been,
that it was futile to put into the Constitution
any such check on the power of calling Con-
ventions as was proposed by the gentleman
from Calvert, [Mr. Sollers,] because in the face of
a still stronger prohibition the legislature had by a
single act called the present Convention. The
report of the gentleman from Allegany, how-
ever, did not attempt to place any check either
upon the will of the people or the action of the
legislature in regard to calling a Convention.
It merely provided that the question should be
submitted at certain stated times to the people,
The difference between the two propositions as
to their efficacy seemed to him very clear. He
did not mean to say that amendments might not
be made by Conventions called in either mode,
but that the proposition of the gentleman from
Calvert was futile as a check upon the people |
