would become a part of the Constitution. Now
understanding that to be the true state of the
case, he would bote against that, or any other
proposition that had a tendency to produce ex-
citement, or keep up agitation. He should vote
to allow the Constitution to stand as it was-to
to take the sense of the people every ten years, to
ascertain whether or not they were in favor of
calling a Convention.
Mr. DONALDSON briefly replied to the remarks
of the gentleman from Queen Anne's, (Mr.
Spencer,) and explained again the effect of his
amendment. The only question was, said he,
whether we should have any mode whatever of
making amendments to the Constitution, with-
out calling a Convention at enormous expense,
say upwards of one hundred thousand dollars,
and tearing to pieces the whole instrument if
a new Convention should be called, it would be
based of course upon the new apportionment of
the Senate and House of Delegates, and there
would be less protection to the minority in such
Convention than in the Legislature itself. A
bare majority of the joint numbers of the repre-
sentatives would carry any proposition in the
Convention, whereas in the Legislature a ma-
jority of each branch would be necessary for the
same purpose; and as the vote must be take se-
parately in the two branches, the Senate, which
represents the counties as such, would be a com-
plete check upon the House of Delegates, which
may be said to respect popular numbers. Does
the gentleman from Queen Anne's suppose that
in a Legislature constituted on the basis now
agreed upon, the Senate would concur with the
House of Delegates to abolish slavery? Mr. D.
thought there was no occasion for gentlemen to
be alarmed on that account in reference to the
mode of amendment he proposed; and they must
know very well, that when public opinion is such
as would induce both branches in the Legislature
to abolish slavery, the same influence would
even more surely effect the same result in a
Convention.
Mr. MITCHELL moved the previous question.
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent, demanded the yeas
and nays, which were ordered,
And being taken,
Resulted as follows:
Affirmative-Messrs. Mitchell, Howard, Buch-
anan, Welch, Ridgely, Dickinson, Hicks, Ec-
cleston, McCullough, Spencer, George, Thomas
Shriver, Biser, Annan, Stephenson, McHenry,
Magraw, Nelson, Carter, Thawley, Stewart, of
Caroline, Gwinn, Sherwood, of Baltimore city,
Ware, Schley, Fiery, Neill, John Newcomer,
Harbine, Michael Newcomer, Brewer, Ander-
son, Weber, Hollyday, Slicer, Fitzpatrick, Smith,
Shower, Cockey and Brown-41.
Negative-Messrs. Chapman, President, Mor-
gan, Blakistone, Hopewell, Ricaud, Chambers,
of Kent, Donaldson, Dorsey, Wells, Randall,
Sollers, Brent, of Charles, John Dennis, James
U. Dennis, Dashiell, Williams, Goldsborough,
Bowie, Sprigg, Dirickson, McMaster, Hearn,
Davis, Kilgour and Waters-25.
So the previous question was sustained. |
And the main question ordered to be taken,
which was-
"Will the Convention accept the substitute as
offered by Mr. SOLLERS, for the amendment offer-
ed by Mr. DONALDSON, as an additional section
to the report?"
Mr. KILGOUR demanded the yeas and nays,
which were ordered.
Mr. DIRICKSON. Before the vote is taken I de-
sire to ask the gentleman from Anne Arundel,
[Mr. Donaldson,] the author of the proposition
now offered to the consideration of the Convention,
a single question. If I understand it aright,
it provides that any amendment or change of
the Constitution which may hereafter be adopt-
ed by one General Assembly, and receive the
sanction of a majority of the voters at the en-
suing election, shall be enacted by the next le-
gislature as part of the Constitution. Now ow-
ing to the peculiar character of our State, it
might occur that an amendment might be thus
passed and approved by a majority of the people
and yet be opposed by a majority of the coun-
ties, as represented on this floor. I wish then to
know if in the event of such an occurrence the
majority of the Delegates who might by the di-
rect vote of their respective constituency, be
instructed to oppose such constitutional amend-
ment, would be compelled, nevertheless, to en-
act it as part of the Constitution?
A DELEGATE. Yes. sir.
Mr. DIRICKSON, Then, sir, I do not think
such a provision can receive the sanction of the
Convention.
The question was then taken,
And resulted as follows :
Affirmative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't, Mor-
gan, Blakistone, Hopewell, Ricaud, Chambers,
of Kent, Mitchell, Wells, Sollers, Brent, of
Charles, Merrick. John Dennis, James U. Den-
nis, Dashiell, Williams, Hicks, Goldsborough,
Bowie, Sprigg, Dirickson, McMaster, Hearn,
Davis, Kilgour and Waters—25.
Negative— .Messrs. Donaldson, Dorsey, Ran-
dall, Howard, Buchanan, Welch, Ridgely, Dick-
inson, Eccleston, McCullough, Spencer, George,
Thomas, Shriver, Biser, Annan, Stephenson,
McHenry, Magraw, Nelson, Carter, Thawley,
Stewart, of Caroline, Gwinn, Sherwood, of
Bait. city, Ware, Schley, Fiery, Neill, John
Newcomer, Harbine, Michael Newcomer, Brew-
er. Anderson, Weber, Hollyday, Slicer, Fitz-
patrick, Smith, Shower. Cockey and Brown—42.
So the Convention refused to accept the sub-
stitute.
The question then recurred and was taken on
the adoption of the amendment as offered by
Mr. DONALDSON, and amended on the motion of
Mr. STEPHENSON, and
Determined in the negative.
At 20 minutes past 3 o'clock, p. m.,
Mr. SPENCER moved the Convention adjourn ;
which motion he waived to enable Mr RANDALL
to give notice of his intention to move the fol-
lowing amendment to the report of the commit-
tee just adopted. |
