Negative.—Messrs. Chapman, President, Mor-
gan, Hopewell, Chambers, of Kent, Wells, Sell-
man, Sollers, Howard, Buchanan, Welch, Ridge-
ly, Bowie, Tuck. Sprigg, Spencer, George, Thomas,
Shriver, Biser, Annan, Stephenson, Mc-
Henry, Magraw, Nelson, Carter, Stewart, of
Caroline, Gwinn, Brent, of Baltimore city, Sher-
wood, of Baltimore, Presstman, Ware, Schley,
Fiery, Neill, John Newcomer, Harbine, Michael
Newcomer, Anderson, Weber, Hollyday, Slicer
Fitzpatrick, Smith, Shower, Cockey and Brown
—46.
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. RANDALL then moved to amend the sub-
stitute of Mr. FITZPATRICK by inserting after the
words "votes cast," the following:
" Equal in number to at least a majority of
the votes of this State, as ascertained by the last
preceding election for elector" of President and
Vice President of the United States."
Mr. RANDALL did not understand that it was
pretended by any member of this Convention,
that less than a majority of the votes of the State,
by expression or implication, should change the
Constitution. The object of his amendment was
not to require a majority of all the votes, because
it would be impracticable to ascertain when such
majority was cast, but as nearly as they could be
done, to require that the number of votes for a
Convention should be at least a majority of the
votes cast at the last preceding election for Pre-
sident. The population of the State was increas-
ing, and there would be no danger of such a re-
quired vote exceeding any real majority of the
voters of the State. If there should be a majo-
rity of the votes, as ascertained by the last pre-
ceding Presidential election, cast ill favor of any
call of a Convention, they might, nevertheless,
fall far short of a majority of all the voters of
the State; so he thought that it would be the
best mode of ascertaining if such a large number
of the people of the State were favorable to these
changes, as would secure their final adoption.
It did seem to him, that it would be carrying out
an established principle of the government, that
no less than a majority should vote for a Conven-
tion to change the Constitution to which the
whole people had for years submitted as the
government of their choice.
Mr. TUCK said, if he had been a member of
the last Legislature, he would have voted for the
proposition offered by a gentleman from St.
Mary's county, requiring the number of votes in
favor of this Convention to be equal, at least, to
a majority of the votes cast for President and
Vice President. He would have done this to en-
sure a full vote on that important question;
which he was then satisfied would not be the case
at a special election. The fact was, that not
one-half of all the voters in the State had voted
on the question. But if the people had been
called to express their opinion for and against a
Convention at a general election, he would no
have voted for any such amendment, because
there is always a full vote at these elections, and
he should, for the same reason, vote against the
amendment now offered by his friend from Ann
48 |
Arundel. The sense of the people is proposed
to he taken every ten years, at a general election
of Delegates. He thought this would bring out
a full vote. He conceded that some standard
would be proper, if it were to be taken at a spe-
cial election. He would suppose that this
amendment passed, and that forty-nine thousand
votes were taken at the election for Governor or
President, and only forty-seven thousand voted
on the question of calling a Convention, of which
twenty-four thousand were in favor of a Conven-
tion. It could not be held, because, by the
standard proposed, the voters in favor of the call
must number at least twenty-four thousand five
hundred. There would be loud complaints
against such a result. The consequence would
be inevitable. Here would be strong evidence
of the people being in favor of the Convention ;
yet another trial could not be had for ten years.
The impatience of the agitators of such ques-
tions would soon he made manifest, by appeals
to the people. They would be reminded of the
doctrines of popular rights, of the right of the
majority to govern, and this cry of agitation
would not cease until another Convention was
had against the forms of law, may be, if it
could not he had under these sanctions. He
wished to witness no such scenes, and thought
it better to leave the question to be decided at a
general election, by a majority of the poll then
cast, which would be sufficiently large.
Mr. HOWARD objected to the proposition as an
infringement of the rights which the people had
by their sovereignty. The effect of the propo-
sition would be to compel all those who were in
favor of a Convention, to go to the polls, notwith-
standing the inclemency of the weather, notwith-
standing their own pursuits, which might incline
them to stay away. It was compelling them to
go and vote, or else lose their vote. Upon the
other side, if a man was against a Convention,
he might stay away from the polls, and the vole
would not be less on his side of the question, it
would throw upon the affirmative the necessity of
giving their votes, or they would be lost, while
those in the negative might stay away, and their
votes would not be lost. So that it would impose a
burden upon a portion of the voters, while it relieved
another portion. If there was one thing
which every man in the State held as his indivi-
dual property, to be exercised as he thought best,
it was the right of sovereignty. He would vote
against the proposition.
Mr. RANDALL said that with regard to the ob-
jection of the gentleman from Baltimore county,
[Mr. Howard ] he would ask why should not the
vote of a mail who did not attend the polls be-
cause he did not wish a change in the
Constitution be counted by reason of his absence
as well as the man who did attend the polls? He
intended that their votes should be counted. Gen-
erally speaking be apprehended that a majority
of those favorable to a Convention would be more
likely to attend, while those who were opposed
to a Convention, would be likely to stay away.
If they had an established organic law of the
land, that law ought not to be changed unless a |
