clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Proceedings and Debates of the 1850 Constitutional Convention
Volume 101, Volume 2, Debates 386   View pdf image
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space
386
from Harford as his lecturer, and his lecture was
therefore, wholly gratuitous. No member on:
this floor should impugn his motives. When
they talked about Buncombe, he would go to
some other portions of the State—to Harford. He
came here fearlessly, and independently to do his
duty. If in so doing, he should tread upon the
toes of every gentleman upon this floor—ah! even
the gentleman from Harford—he could not help
it.
He, (Mr, H. ) meant fearlessly to move here
in whatever he might believe to be his public
duty. In this he called upon the members of
the Convention to show their self-sacrificing spirit.
When they spoke of this proceeding as being
"barefaced," he thought that belonged to another
quarter.
He thought the gentleman who had read him
this lecture had moved in matters here, quite as
barefaced as his position. He, (Mr. H ,) was
not to be driven from his position by denunciations
of that sort, when he believed he was performing
his duty. He believed that the passage
of a proposition like his, was a duty the Convention
owed itself and a duty which it owed to the
State of Maryland. He asked if they were here
making place for themselves, or had they come
to this Convention, honestly, faithfully to serve the
people of the State of Maryland.
Mr. MCHENRY declared that he had meant to
to cast no imputation upon the motives of either
the gentleman from Dorchester or the gentleman
from Anne Arundel. He had reference exclu-
sively to the character of the proposition as apparent
on its face.
Mr. RANDALL said that the proposition, what
ever of weal or wo there might be in it, originated
with himself. It did not originate in this
Convention. When first he had an opportunity
of appearing before the people, (and he believed
the gentleman from Carroll was present ) having
heard much said of candidates seeking seats in
this Convention, for the purpose of vacating offices
and obtaining places he wished to meet
that objection promptly, and nip it in the bud.
He therefore stated to the people, that if they
should honor him with a seat in the Convention
he would endeavor to prevent this charge being
alleged against any member of that Convention
and that he would do it for the sake of the honor
and dignity of the members themselves. It was a
pledge which he then made, stating that as for
himself, he should accept no office under the
Constitution within that limitation. He hoped
his future life would carry it out. He had proposed
this disqualification for a limited period of
time, because by its expiration he thought every
inducement supposed to be influential in this respect
upon members would cease. For this reason,
he would say to the gentleman from Calvert.
( Mr Sollers ) that the adoption of this amendment,
would be quite sufficient to remove the suspicion
of an improper motive. No man in this
life could reasonably be expected to be influenced
in his action on a Constitution by any probable
personal emolument, he might possibly desire
five years hence from its formation, dis-
qualify him for five years, and that would effectually
remove all suspicion of undue influence—
that was his motive. He introduced the proposition
early in the session, and had it referred to
a committee of which he believed the gentleman
from Charles, (Mr. Jenifer.) was the chairman—
the omnibus committee as it had been ludicrously
termed— but nothing was done in the matter
He had declared that he intended from his
place, to inquire of the committee if they intended
to report upon the subject? And it they did
not to give notice that on a particular day he
would call up the subject before the Convention
—but his friend from Dorchester, [Mr.
Hicks.] had anticipated him. So much then, for
his motive. He believed every gentleman in
the Convention, desired to be exempt from the
suspicion of improper motives in his action here,
and he did hope this would be manifested by
adopting this proposition; he did hope that they
would thus show their disinterestedness. It
would give a sanction to the Constitution they
were forming, which no other principle it could
contain, could possibly confer upon it. Let the
people of the State be fully impressed with the
conviction that this Convention assembled here
with no other view than the promotion of the
best interests of the people, and that every mod-
ification of the Constitution was designed with-
out party or personal views for the sole advancement
of the public good, and in their estimation
it would confer upon the Constitution a charac-
ter that it would not otherwise possess.
It had been said that this proposition would
be dishonorable to themselves. Their fathers
did not think so when they framed similar pro-
visions in our Constitution of 1776, They pro-
vided that the Governor should take no bribe,
an how he should be punished when he should
violate such provision. They imposed restrictions,
prohibiting members of the Legislature
from accepting offices &c. This Convention
was not superhuman; it claimed no such prerogative
here. In this present Constitution, similar
restrictions had already been imposed where im-
proper influences might exist. He would say,
and every gentleman would bear him out in the
assertion, that there was no Constitution in the
United States, which had not some such restrictions,
upon the officers of its government, founded
upon the apprehension of danger where any
temptation to do wrong existed
In regard to the objection that we would, by
adopting this proposition, be imposing restrictions
on the rights of the people to elect whom they
pleased—he admitted this was such a restriction.
The people of every government were restricted
by their constitutions, or rather they thereby restricted
themselves in the exercise of their natural
rights. Their present Constitution forbade
the people to elect the same individual sheriff for
six years. They had also, since 1836, forbidden
the people to elect a Governor, except from par-
ticular districts. A Constitution, from beginning
to end, was but restrictions upon rights. Government
itself was a restriction upon natural
rights for the public good. In speaking, there-


 
clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Proceedings and Debates of the 1850 Constitutional Convention
Volume 101, Volume 2, Debates 386   View pdf image
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  October 06, 2023
Maryland State Archives