majority should be in favor of it. In the ordi-
nary regular elections for officers to execute the
existing powers of the established government,
it is essential that failures to elect should not
occur—and the common exercise of this power
causes many to be indifferent as to its exercise
hence the law prescribes that a majority merely
of those who actually vote should elect it
would not do in changing the organic law of the
State. The difference was very obvious, and the
danger great. Let the Constitution remain as it
was, until a majority of the people were favora-
ble to a change. Let them change it as often as
they pleased, but do not have it changed until a
majority of the people desire it, else you violate
just principles declaring that less than a majority
may govern,
There was an obvious distinction between the
ordinary course of government and this extraordinary
course, such as changing the organic law.
They might incur the expenses of calling a Convention
by a plurality of the votes cast, and the
result would be, us it might be even with the
labors of this Convention, that a majority of the
people of the Mate would reject the Constitution
framed by it. This state of things could not,
after all the loss of time and money to the people
in its preparation, so likely occur, if they adopted
his proposition. If there should be a majority
of the people in favor of such a change, and desirous
of calling a Convention, and if such Convention
should be called, then the chances were
greatly in favor of the adoption of the Constitution
framed by it. On the other hand, the
chances were very much against the adoption of
a Constitution, the work of a Convention called
into existence by a mere majority of the voters
who may have cast their votes in favor of such a
course over those who cast their votes against it
regardless of the fact that those who voted for
the Convention, and it may be united even with
those who voted against it, that all who then
voted on the subject did not constitute a majority
of the votes of the State.
The question being on the amendment of Mr.
RANDALL.
Mr. RANDALL. demanded the yeas and nays.
which were ordered, and being taken, resulted
as follows:
Affirmative.— Messrs. Morgan, Blakistone,
Hopewell, Chambers of Kent, Donaldson, Dorsey,
Wells, Randall, Sellman, Sollers, Brent of Chas.,
Merrick, Jenifer, John Dennis, James U. Dennis,
Dashiell, Williams, Hicks, Goldsborough. Ec-
cleston, Bowie, Sprigg, Dirickson, McMaster
Davis, Kilgour, and Waters—21.
Negative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't, Ricaud,
Mitchell, Howard Buchanan, Welch, Ridgely,
Dickinson, McCullough, Tuck, Spencer, George,
Thomas, Shiver, Biser, Annan, Stephenson, McHenry,
Magraw, Nelson, Carter, Thawley, Stew-
art, of Caroline, Gwinn, Sherwood, of Balt city,
Ware, Schley, Fiery, Neill, John Newcomer,
Harbine, Michael Newcomer, Brewer, Weber,
Anderson, Hollyday, Slicer, Fitzpatrick, Smith
Shower, Cockey and Brown—42.
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. DAVIS desired to know whether the vote |
just announced, in effect, was not a denial of the
rule that the majority should govern?
The question then recurred,
"Will the Convention accept the substitute as
offered by Mr. FITZPATRICK, and amended on the
motion of Mr. BROWN, for the report submitted
by Mr. SOLLERS, as Chairman of the committee ?"
Mr. SOLLERS demanded the yeas and nays,
which were ordered, and being taken, were as
follows :
Affirmative—Messrs. Donaldson, Howard, Bu-
chanan, Welch, Ridgely, Dirickson, Eccleston,
McCullough, Spencer, George, Thomas, Shriver,
Biser, Annan, Stephenson, McHenry, Magraw,
Nelson, Carter, Thawley, Stewart of Caroline,
Gwinn, Brent of Baltimore city, Sherwood of
Baltimore city, Ware, Schley, Fiery, Neill, John
Newcomer, Harbine, Michael Newcomer. Brew-
er, Anderson, Weber, Hollyday, Slicer, Fitzpa-
trick, Smith, Shower, Cockey, and Brown—41..
Negative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't., Morgan,
Blakistone, Hopewell, Ricaud, Chambers of Kent,
Mitchell, Dorsey, Wells, Sellman, Sollers, Brent
of Chas., Merrick, Jenifer, John Dennis, James
U. Dennis, Dashiell, Williams, Hicks, Goldsborough,
Bowie, Tuck, Sprigg Dirickson, McMaster,
Davis Kilgour, and Waters—28.
So the Convention accepted the substitute.
The question then recurred on the adoption of
the report.
Mr. BLAKISTONE offered as a substitute for the
report, the following:
"That it shall be the right and privilege of the
people of this State, at any general election of
Delegates, to vote for or against a Convention,
and if it shall appear that a majority of the whole
number of legal voters are in favor of calling a
Convention, the said majority to be ascertained
by the largest popular vote taken in the preced-
ing election of President of the United States,
the election of Governor, or the general election
of Delegates to the General Assembly respectively,
at which the largest popular vote may
have been cast. Each county and the city of
Baltimore to have a representation equal to the
representation to which the same may be enti-
tled in the Senate and House of Delegates at that
time. That it shall be the duty of the judges of
election in the several counties and the city of
Baltimore, to make returns thereof to the clerks
of the several counties and city of Baltimore,
whose duty it shall be to make return thereof to
the Governor, who, upon casting up said votes,
if he shall find that a majority of the whole num-
ber of legal voters, as above specified, are in
favor of a Convention shall issue his proclamation
proclaiming such fact. And issue a proclamation
for an election of Delegates to said
Convention, in conformity to the previous provi-
sions of this article. That such election shall
take place on the same day on which elections
are held for the election of Delegates, but on the
intermediate year, so that the sessions of the
Convention and meeting of the Legislature may
not happen at the same time. That the period
of the meeting of such Convention shall be the
first Monday of January next succeeding the elec-
tion of Delegates to said Convention. That the |
