and the legislature. If there was no actual pro-
hibition in the Constitution, the legislature
could at any time call a Convention, according
to the American doctrine, expounded by Mr.
Webster in Luther vs. Borden, a doctrine which
he believed was now acquiesced in on all sides.
With regard to the amendment of the Consti-
tution by acts of two successive legislatures,
without a direct submission intermediately to the
people, as was proposed by the gentleman from
Calvert in the terms of the old Constitution, he
would say, that no betier method could be de-
vised for giving control to managing politicians.
They could often succeed in securing the ma-
jority in two successive legislatures, in favor of
projects, not called for by public sentiment, and
even in opposition to public sentiment. Espe-
cially was this the case where majorities of
quorums only were required to pass laws. He
would cite for illustration a case within his
own knowledge, which he had referred to on
another occasion. In 1836 an article was en-
grafted on our Constitution prohibiting all lottery
grants by the legislature; a special exemption
from this provision in the form of a new lottery
grant for a particular purpose, was passed by
two successive legislatures, and is now a part
of our Constitution. It was notorious that this
was accomplished by log-rolling combinations,
and voluntary absences of members of the le-
gislature. Could any one pretend that such
an amendment would have received a thousand
votes from the people of the State? The contra-
ry was well known. Here politicians, for pri-
vate and local, or for party ends, had managed—
and if the old system were retained, would
hereafter manage, majorities of quorums in
our legislatures. Should the section he had of-
fered be adopted, it would allow amendments
to be made to the Constitution within the same
time as formerly, but in amanner more safe
and more under the control of the people.
Mr. Bowie said, that he was not sure but that
the amendment of the gentleman from Anne Ar-
undel, (Mr. Donaldson,) would be an improvement,
if amendments to the Constitution were to
be entrusted to the Legislature. But in regard
to taking the sense of the people every ten years,
or at any other particular periods of time, he was
utterly opposed to it. He thought that the right
of the people, through their representatives in the
General Assembly, to call a Convention at any
time that the public exigencies required it, ought
to be sanctioned and acknowledged in its broad-
est and most unlimited sense. He was opposed
to all restrictions upon their power to amend the
organic law. The denial of the right, and the
restrictions which the present Constitution con-
tained upon the great inherent right of the peo-
ple, was in his judgment the cause of all the agi-
tation which had led to the assembling of the
present Convention. If the people, through their
representatives, were allowed to call aconven-
tion, whenever they might think it necessary.
there could be no necessity for any limitation at
all—either for ten years or any other periodical
term. Let us throw no impediments in the way |
of the exercise of this great and fundamental
principle of all free governments. There could
be then no complaints from any quarter. But if
there was a limitation to ten or twenty years,
there would be complaints and continued agitation.
The surest way to produce repose and
quiet among the people on this important ques-
tion of their political rights, would be to secure
to them the untrammelled enjoyment of of those
rights, there would be nothing then left for
them to dispute about—nothing about which they
could excite agitation. But the moment restrictions
are imposed upon those rights, there would
be agitation He thought the people of the counties,
would be infinitely more secure, with such
a provision in the Constitution. They would
then always unite in opposing the extravagant
demands of Baltimore city. If the basis of re-
presentation which had been adopted by the
Convention, should be ratified by the people,
what section of the State, would gain by any further
reforms? Certainly not the counties. The
only gain would be to the city of Baltimore,
which would, for all time to come, at regular
periods of ten years, agitate the question of re-
presentation according to population. Every
change hereafter to take place, would necessarily
enure to the benefit of those who advoca-
ted that doctrine. It was already engrafted
on the Constitution, that after the year 1860, re-
presentation according to population among the
counties, should be the established and permanent
principle. Do the counties want any thing
more? If periodical returns of agitation on this
subject, were to be allowed, for whose benefit
would it be? .He would say now, that it could
enure to the benefit of Baltimore city; and he
warned the counties to look to it in time. The
counties after the year 1860, would have no conceivable
motives in wishing for further reform on
this subject. If Baltimore city is allowed every
ten years to agitate the people of the State, on
the question of representation according to her
population, she would keep it up until the day of
judgement. He hoped the substitute of the gen-
tleman from Allegany, (Mr, Fitzpatrick,) would
not pass.
Mr JENIFER said, that it had appeared to him
that the proposition of the gentleman from Cal-
vert embraced all that was necessary. The first
section was intended to provide for all minor
amendments; and the second for the calling of a
Convention, when more important amendments
were contemplated The only question was
whether the Convention should be called by the
people or by legislative act. He would suggest
that if the gentleman would accept the amendment
of the gentleman from Carroll, to settle the
basis upon which the next Convention should be
called, it would be better than to leave it to an
act of the Legislature.
Mr SOLLERS here stated, that he had intended
to say that if the proposition of the gentleman
from Allegany should be voted down, he would
the accept the amendment of the gentleman from
Carroll.
Mr. JENIFER said, that with that proposition |
