hundred years, because of the expense and length
of the present one. Unless the interests of the
people should suffer, the probability was that
there would be no Convention speedily. But if
they should withhold from the people this pow-
er, then they would see another state of things.
His only object was to provide a mode—one that
was truly republican— of letting the people ex-
press their opinions once in ten years. These
reasons would control his vote.
The question was then taken on the amend-
ment of Mr, BROWN to the substitute of Mr.
FITZPATRICK,
And it was agreed to.
Mr. HICKS moved further to amend said sub-
stitute by striking out the word, "every," and
inserting "the," and by striking out the word
"hereafter," and after the word "taken," by
inserting "in the year 1870 and in every twen-
tieth year thereafter," which would give the peo-
ple the power to call a Convention every twenty
years.
Mr. BOWIE said;
That he should vote against this amendment,
for the very reason that he should vote against
the original proposition of the gentleman from
Allegany. He held that they had no right to put
any shackles upon the right of the people to
change the organic law.
He held that discontent would more speedily
spring up under a system of shackles, for ten or
twenty years, or for any length of time. He
maintained the broad doctrine that whenever the
people, through their representatives, thought
proper to call a Convention, they should have the
right to do so,
He had always maintained this doctrine. All
who knew any thing of the course which he took
in the legislature several years ago, and who
would undertake to read his arguments, would
see that he maintained this doctrine then. He
was then in favor of repealing the 59th article of
the Constitution. He was utterly opposed to all
restrictions. He believed that if they would
grant the people their rights, without limitation
or restraint, they would feel happy, contented
and satisfied.
It would not then be in the power of any agita-
tor to raise exciting questions about their political
rights. All the representatives of the coun-
ties in this Convention, should go against any lim-
itation. Therefore, he should vote for the second
section of the report, as reported by the gen-
tleman from Calvert, (Mr. Sollers.) We should
have more safely and more security against agi-
tation, if the course should be adopted. This
was his deliberate opinion, and he should ad-
here to it,
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city, desired to
know if the gentleman regarded the legislature
as synonymous with the people?
Mr. BOWIE replied, that no doubt, when pub-
lic opinion required it, the legislature would
call a Convention.
Mr. HICKS wished to know whether the very
fact of being assembled here did not prove conclusively
that the people were determined to |
manage this matter in their own way? How
had this Convention been kept here as long as it
had? It had been by the different opinions ex-
isting among the people of the State in relation
to its constitutionality. While some had be-
lieved that it was entirely within the meaning of
the Constitution for the people to call a Convention
whenever they were so disposed, others believed
that it would be in conflict with that instrument.
If they were disposed to submit this
subject to the people, let them endeavor, by all
possible means, to submit it to them in the most
judicious way they could. All seemed to agree
that it was important and desirable that they
should do all in their power to allay this agita-
tion. Could this be done, by leaving the subject
to be agitated every year or every second year,
and so on? If they should throw the door open
for the holding of a Convention in so short a
time as ten years, the agitation would commence
forthwith. Had not this been foreshadowed in
this Convention ? The moment it was under-
stood that a Convention could be called at a cer-
tain period, a portion of the people would raise a
hue and cry that there were features in the Con-
stitution injurious to some particular section, or
to some particular class of people. They would
clamor for a Convention, and if they should fix a
period when a Convention should be held, reason-
ably remote, but certain, and arrange for its tem-
porary operations in this Constitution, why the
people would very likely submit to it, especially
when they adverted to the fact that in 1850 a
Convention assembled at the seat of government
and that it took from the State treasury some
one hundred and fifty thousand dollars. They
would not be very apt to call a Convention again
for trifling causes, certainly not in order merely
to quiet this continual agitation gotten up by de-
signing men and mere demagogues. He had
been long enough engaged in public life, and as
far as he had been able fighting against these
agitations, to know that it was not profitable or
pleasant to keep the public mind continually
agitated. It seemed to him that the true course
to he pursued here in offering every project, is
to make it as acceptable to all as it could possi-
bly be, and it appeared to him that twenty years
was the proper time in which to call together a
Convention, taking away the opportunity of crea-
ting frequent agitations, as this question always
had created agitation, and always will. Let us
substitute twenty for ten years, and give the peo-
ple a little repose—yea, a little relief, in view of
what the Convention is to cost them.
The question was then stated to be on agreeing
to the amendment of Mr. HICKS.
Mr ECCLESTON demanded the yeas and nays;
Which were ordered ;
And being taken, resulted as follows:
Affirmative.—Messrs. Blakistone, Ricaud, Mitch-
ell, Donaldson, Dorsey, Randall, Brent, of
Charles, Merrick, Jenifer, Dickinson, John Den-
nis, James U. Dennis, Dashiell, Williams, Hicks,
Goldsborough, Eccleston, Dirickson. McMaster,
Hearn, Thawley, Davis, Kilgour, Brewer and
Waters—25. |
