corruptions and abuses in legislation, if it was
proper to restrict the legislature, he did not see
less propriety in some self-denial on our own
part. He would vote for an amendment to op-
erate upon ourselves, but saw no efficacy in any
attempt to bind future Conventions, because if
we tie their hands they may remove the restriction.
Mr. RANDALL had but one word to say in re-
ply to the gentleman from Prince George's. Did
it not seem that every member who proposed an
alteration in the old Constitution, had violated
his oath, if the gentleman's principle was true;
because that old Constitution declared that it
should be altered by two successive votes of the
Legislature; and at almost every Legislature that
had been in session since the formation of the
Constitution to the present time, were alterations
made in it, or passed bills for the purpose.
Mr. TUCK said that they did not violate the
Constitution when they altered it, according to
the made prescribed therein.
Mr. RANDALL said that this was precisely his
argument. This Convention had already prescribed
a mode for altering the Constitution
How, then would the oath of a member to sup-
port this Constitution, be inconsistent with an
effort on his part to alter it, if he was proceeding
so to do by virtue of the mode thereby prescribed?
His friend must see that members of a new Convention,
called under this Constitution, in taking
on oath to support this Constitution, would be no
more violating that oath in their efforts to alter
it according to the mode it prescribed, than would
be the members of the Legislature, under the old
Constitution, by taking an oath to support that
Constitution, and afterwards enacting laws which
would change that Constitution in the mode thereby
prescribed, if passed at two successive Legislatures,
Mr. TUCK meant this, that if they should place
these restrictions in the Constitution, and another
Convention should assemble and take the oath
which his friend proposed they should take would
that prevent them, in the very first clause, from
striking out the article which it was now proposed
to insert? If they could so easily relieve
themselves from the guard thus thrown around
them, what was the use of pulling it in ? He did
not say, however, that they had not the power to
bind them, out that the exercise of such a power
would be entirely nugatory.
Mr SPENCER remarked, that in addition to
what had been said by the gentleman from Prince
George's his objection was this, that they had no
right to bind the people in relation to future Constitutions
If the people should create a new
Constitution, and not say one word about this
thing, it would not have the slightest effect on
the Constitution. The Convention would have
to adopt it themselves in the new Constitution, to
give it effect. How could they by this Constitution,
prescribe a clause that a future Constitu-
tion should reject, having the same object as that
submitted by the gentleman from Anne Arundel?
In his opinion, this was a restriction this Conven-
tion had no right to impose. |
Mr. RANDALL wished to say a few words in
reply to the gentleman who had just taken his
seat, who entertained the opinion that this Con-
vention had no right to adopt this proposition.
This body was the merest agents of the people;
they were to form a Constitution, but it would be
waste paper unless adopted by the people. Had
not the people the right to say who should and
who should not be their rulers, agents, or ser-
vants, whatever they might be termed? His
friend's argument, in regard to their confining
restrictions on the people, appeared to him to
have no place here. The people, by adopting
the Constitution, impossed restraints upon them-
selves.
He (Mr. R.) had suggested, in anticipation,
the difficulty of the gentleman from Prince
George's, and his (Mr. R's) reply to that he
deemed sufficient. It was that those who were
to accept such offices under a call tor a new
Constitution, could not have the hardihood to in-
sert in the new Constitution any clause which
would qualify them. After the people had
adopted a Constitution declaring that members
of a Convention to form a Constitution should not
be qualified to hold offices created by that Consti-
tution, and after the members of the Convention
had disqualified themselves by becoming such,
he thought there would be no danger of members
of that Convention attempting to qualify them-
selves for office. It seemed doubtful whether
they could do it consistently with the upright
faith they would owe their constituents. They
might, however qualify all other persons by leav-
ing this clause of the Constitution which they
might frame.
The PRESIDENT stated the question to be on the
amendment offered by Mr. Randall.
Mr. RANDALL demanded the yeas and nays
which were ordered.
Mr DONALDSON merely desired to say that ill
the early part of the session he voted against
engrafting such a provision in the Constitu-
tion in relation to themselves, thinking that no
such measure was necessary to secure the unbiassed
consideration of any part of the Constitution,
and believing that its adoption would
hereafter deprive the state of the indispensable
services of many able men. He confessed that
his experience and observation here had caused
him to change this opinion in some respects; and
he only regretted that the proposition was not
adopted at the time when it was first introduced.
He would vote for the amendment of his col-
league, (Mr. Randall,) to have whatever effect
it might, and afterward for the same provision
in regard to the members of this Convention.
Mr. BUCHANAN said that in the beginning of
the session, he voted for a proposition analagous
to the one now pending. He intended now to
vote against the proposition of the gentleman
from Anne Arundel. More mature reflection
had satisfied him that he was wrong in voting
for the proposition first referred to. Such a pro-
vision, if adopted, would operate as a restriction
upon the people, and might, in future, keep the
ablest men out of their service. |
