not the slightest application to me, not as far as
I know, to those gentlemen to whom the gentle-
man's remarks were applied. We all considered
the act unconstitutional, and the more we have
thought of it, the more thoroughly have we been
convinced it is so. I have heretofore expressed
my views in regard to this matter, and have. no
design to repeat them.
Mr. DONALDSON regretted extremely, that it
was out of his power to vote for the amendment
offered by the gentleman from St. Mary's. (Mr.
Blakistone.) He would do so with all his heart,
if he could consistently with what he considered
the obligations of the law under which the Con-
vention assembled. His opinion had always
been, and he had so declared in the early part of
the session, that although he believed the law
calling the Convention was in its inception un-
constitutional, yet, having been ratified by the
whole people, who had acquiesced in its provi-
sions, and had chosen us as delegates under it,
that law was necessarily in all its details the
rule of our action. By its terms he believed him-
self strictly bound. It is true. the gentleman
from Kent, (Mr. Chambers,) had advoted an en-
tirely different theory.
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent, here interposed to
say, that he ought to have stated in his remarks,
that a class of gentlemen here held the theory of
the binding effect of the law upon the Convention
from subsequent ratification by the whole people,
as advanced be his friend.
Mr. DONALDSON merely meant to say, that his
opinion on that point remained unchanged, and
he was therefore prevented from changing the
terms of that law in regard to the submission of
the form of a new Constitution to the people, or
the number of votes which would be necessary
for its adoption. If the Chancellor and Chief
Justice of the State, in proclaiming that this law
was passed by a majority of the legal voters of
the State, only looked to the majority of the
votes cast at the election, he considered that the
Convention was bound to leave this latter part of
the act to the same construction, and had no right
to require any thing more than a majority of the
votes cast.
Most gladly would he vote for the amendment,
if he could; for so, in his opinion, should the law
have been originally framed, and it seemed to him
lamentable, that less than a majority of the voters
actualy resident in the State, should have the
power to introduce important changes in the or-
ganic law of the State. Yet the act of Assembly
under which we are assembled here, and which I
believe was ratified in its terms by the people in
the very act by which they elected us, has pre-
scribed a different rule, and I have only to submit,
hoping that all the voters of the State will be
present at the polls to make their decision upon
the work done here, or that at least the majority
of the votes actually cast will produce the same
result as would be produced by the fullest attend-
ance.
The question was then stated to be on the
amendment offered by Mr. BLAKISTONE.
Mr. HARBINE moved the previous question;
|
Which was seconded, and the main question
ordered, viz;
On the adoption of the amendment of Mr.
BLAKISTONE.
Mr. BLAKISTONE demanded the yeas and nays;
Which were ordered, and being taken,
Were as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't., Mor-
gan, Blakistone, Dent, Hopewell, Ricaud, Lee,
Chambers, of Kent, Mitchell, Dorsey, Wells,
Randall, Kent. Weems, Dalrymple, Brent, of
Charles, Merrick, John Dennis, Williams, Hicks,
Goldsborough, Eccleston, Phelps, Tuck, Sprigg,
McCubbin, Bowling, Dirickson, McMaster,
Hearn, Fooks, Jacobs, Kilgour, Waters and.
Smith—35.
Negative—Messrs. Donaldson, Sellman, How-
ard, Buchanan, Bell, Welch, Chandler, Lloyd,
Sherwood, of Talbot, Colston, Constable, Miller,
McLane, Bowie, Spencer, Grason, George,
Wright, Thomas, Shriver, Gaither, Biser, Annan,
Sappington, Stephenson, McHenry, Magraw,
Nelson, Carter, Thawley, Hardcastle, Gwinn,
Stewart, of Baltimore city. Brent, of Baltimore
city, Sherwood, of Baltimore city, Presstman,
Ware, Schley, Fiery, Neill, John Newcomer,
Harbine, Michael Newcomer, Brewer, Anderson,
Weber, Hollyday, Fitzpatrick, Parke, Shower,
Cockey and Brown—53.
So the amendment was rejected.
The question then recurred on the adoption of
the article.
On motion of Mr. BLAKISTONE,
The three first clauses were severally read and
adopted.
The question was then on the 4th clause of the
article.
Mr. DORSEY moved that the question be taken
by yeas and nays ;
Which being ordered,
Appeared as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't. Morgan,
Ricaud Donaldson, Brent, of Charles, Howard,
Buchanan, Bell, Welch, Chandler, Lloyd, Sher-
wood, of Talbot, Colston, Eccleston, Phelps,
Constable, Miller. McLane. Bowie, Spencer,
Grason. George, Wright, Dirickson. McMaster
Hearn, Thomas, Shriver, Gaither, Biser, Annan,
Sappington, Stephenson, McHenry, Magraw,
Nelson, Carter, Thawley, Hardcastle, Gwinn,
Stewart, of Baltimore city. Brent, of Baltimore
city, Sherwood, of Baltimore city, Presstman,
Ware, Schley, Fiery, Neill, John Newcomer,
Harbine, Michael Newcomer, Brewer, Anderson,
Weber, Hollyday, Fitzpatrick, Smith, Parke,
Shower, Cockey and Brown—60.
Negative—Messrs. Blakistone, Dent, Hopewell,
Lee, Chambers, of Kent, Mitchell, Dorsey, Wells,
Randall, Kent, Weems, Dalrymple, John Dennis,
Williams, Hicks, Goldsborough, Tuck, Sprigg,
McCubbin, Bowling, Fooks, Jacobs, Kilgour and
Waters—24
So the 4th article was adopted.
Mr. WARE presented a memorial of the officers
of the First Light Division of Maryland Volun-
teers, in relation to the organization of the militia
of the State; |
