they would have the right also to fix en a still
larger number for the adoption of the Constitu-
tion? They would then have, under the theory
of the government, the extraordinary notion that
this Convention could require even a unanimous
vote of the people to ratify the Constitution un-
der which they were to live. This was the full
consequence of his argument, and he could not
refute it. They were changing places, it seemed,
with gentlemen on the other side. Until the
present moment, nothing but conservatism had
been heard of from gentlemen of the lower counties;
but now it appeared to him that these gen-
tlemen seemed anxious to be more revolution-
ary, than any in the body, which they had once
described by this portentous epithet. The law
was commonly held good in its authority for
pay and mileage—why not give it the same
credit in other particulars?
Mr, BLAKISTONE was very happy to become
the schoolmaster of the gentleman from Balti-
more city, for really he required a little school-
ing. He assured the gentleman be was about to
carry out exactly the same principles he came
here with, and would advocate the right of a
constitutional majority of the people to govern.
The very gentlemen who advocated the calling
of this Convention, now came here, and tried to
take the power away from the people. He was
a very good democrat before he came here, and
very conservative here too, but he was not dem-
ocratic enough to be afraid to trust the people.
The gentleman had referred to the proposition
in relation to mileage, and had said that that
was Whig doctrine. He should like to know if
the gentleman did net receive his mileage?
Mr. GWINN. Under the law.
Mr. BLAKISTONE said that they all received it
equally, and he was very certain that he should
not receive half enough to compensate him for
being here,
He did maintain that a Constitution which
they had established, ought not to be changed,
except for some evident good that was to be ac-
complished, and when there was a proposition,
to change it, it ought to be changed by a solemn
vote of a majority of the whole people, and not
by a fraction of the people. The gentleman
should not undertake to tell him that if the Leg-
islature had passed a law, saying that if a major-
ity of the votes cast in Baltimore city should be
in favor of the Constitution, it should be binding
upon them, and that they could not have the
power to incorporate a provision submitting the
whole to the people of Maryland. That was
the argument of the gentleman. He (Mr. B.)
looked upon the passage of this law as irregular,
He contended in the Legislature that there was
but one power in the State by which the Constitution
could be changed—a majority thought
differently, and he acquiesced in the decision of
that majority. They were assembled together
as the embodiment of the people, and had a
right to express their opinion as the people, and
determine as the people what should be necessary
to give force and effect to the action of their
104 |
hands. He could not comprehend how any man
who called himself a democrat, would be unwilling
to submit the Constitution to the decision
of the whole people, and not to a fraction of the
people. Upon the vote on the amendment which
he bad submitted, they should ascertain who it
was, or who it was not, that were willing to
trust the people.
Mr. HOWARD desired to know how they should
ascertain that the votes cast at the last Presidential
election were the number of votes now ill
the State? Did the gentleman admit that there
were no fraudulent votes given at the last elec-
tion, and did he also admit that nobody had
moved away from the State since then?
Mr. BLAKISTONE had no doubt that there were
a great many fraudulent votes given at the last
election, and he had no doubt, that many had
moved away, and a good many came in. He be-
lieved that the only practical way by which they
could ascertain the number of votes in the Slate,
would be by the last Presidential election, the
vote being larger at that election than at others.
If the gentleman from Baltimore county would
suggest any other mode, more feasible than this,.
by which a majority could be ascertained, he
would willingly adopt it in preference to his
own.
Mr. GRASON, like the gentleman from St.
Mary's, was anxious that the Constitution should
be ratified by a majority of the people, but differ-
ed with him as to the mode of ascertaining it.
That gentleman required a majority of all the
voters of the State, as if the number could be
accurately known in any other way than by
counting the ballots; and as if all were opposed
to the Constitution, who did not attend the polls
and vote for it. The probability is, that, of those
who neglect to vote, the number on each side
will be nearly equal. It is not to be expected,
that an election for the ratification of a Constitution.
will be as well attended as an election for
candidates for office, who always use the great-
est efforts to bring the people to the polls. The
gentleman from St. Mary's, and his political
friends wish to give the new Constitution a fair
chance of adoption, and yet insist upon a rule
which must necessarily defeat it. They Wish
the question to be determined by a majority of
all the people of the State, yet propose to count
those who absent themselves from the polls as
opposed to it. I heir plan is to give the people
their choice, and at the same time, compel them to
reject the new Constitution. Their position maybe
exemplfied by reference to an incident in the history
of Connecticut, which was related many years
ago in this Hall, by a gentleman from Worcester.
It so happened, that in a certain township in that
respectable State, the public jail, like our pre-
sent Constitution, was so much in want of repair,
that a town-meeting was held to decide whether
it would not be better to build a new one. Af-
ter considerable discussion, and the most liberal
professions of regard for the public interest, the
following resolutions were the result of the meet-
ing: First, resolved, that a new jail shall be
erected; secondly, resolved, that the new jail |
