Affirmative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't, Morgan,
Dent, Lee, Donaldson, Wells, Kent, Buchanan,
Bell, Welch, Chandler, Lloyd, Sherwood of Tal-
bot, Colston, John Dennis, Williams, Hicks,
Hodson, Goldsborough, Eccleston, Phelps, Con-
stable, McCubbin, Thomas, Shriver, Gaither,
Biser, Sappington. Stephenson, McHenry, Nel-
son, Gwinn, Stewart of Baltimore city, Ware,
Schley, Neill, Michael Newcomer, Kilgour,
Waters, Weber, Hollyday, Fitzpatrick and
Brown—43.
Negative.—Messrs. Randall, Miller, McLane,
Bowie, Tuck, Spencer, George, Dirickson, Mc-
Master, Hearn, Fooks, Jacobs, Magraw, Thaw-
ley, Hardcastle, Fiery, Harbine, Brewer, Smith,
Parke, Shower and Cockey—22.
So the Convention laid the motion on the ta-
ble.
Mr. JOHN NEWCOMER moved to reconsider the
vote of the Convention, on the article submitted
by Mr. DONALDSON, on the 11th of April, pre-
scribing the mode of altering the Constitution.
Mr. N. considered this as amongst the moat
important provisions of the new Constitution
For a long time he had been opposed to Conven-
tions; and this Convention convinced him strong-
ger than ever, that they should not have Con-
ventions very frequently.
He opposed the calling of a Convention up to
1844, after that, he found that the people de-
sired it, and he accordingly yielded. He desired
to have a plan adopted, to change the Constitu-
tion hereafter, without the calling of a Conven-
tion.
Mr. HARBINE said:
That it seemed to him that this was one of the
most important provisions, they could adopt in
the new Constitution. Everyone who knew any
thing, in relation to what they had done, would
recollect that they had but one provision for
amending any defects which might be found to
exist in the Constitution, and that was by calling a
Convention once in ten years. He thought that
some mode should be adopted which would not
conflict with the existing one, and by which the
organic law might be amended without subject-
ing the people of the Slate to the cost of another
Convention, and a delay of ten years.
Mr. BOWIE concurred with the gentleman
from Washington county, as lo the importance
of this provision. They had engrafted upon the
Constitution, as one of its cardinal principles,
that the sense of the people should be taken
every ten years whether there should be a Con-
vention or not. It acknowledged the great prin-
ciple that the people had a right to change their
form of government whenever they pleased, ac-
cording to the mode prescribed in the Constitu-
tion, by a Convention. He asked if it was necessary
that they should be confined to that
mode. They gave them the largest liberty, but
would they not, provide some other mode more
convenient by which to change it in the mean time
Were the people to wait, under the burden of
the judicial system they had imposed upon them
ten years before they could obtain relief? He
hoped not. By an article of the Constitution al- |
ready adopted, they had conferred on the people
the right to change the Constitution by a Con-
vention. They gave them that privilege. They
recognised the doctrine that they had the right
to do it, but in the mean time it would be proper
that the Legislature might do it upon submitting
their action to the people for ratification.
He understood that it was now attempted to
engraft in the Constitution a provision that the
Legislature might change the Constitution by two
successive acts, leaving the people to decide
whether there was a necessity to call a Conven-
tion. What objection could there be to that?
He asked gentlemen if they meant to entail the
evils of this Constitution whatever they might be,
upon the people for ten years, and thus put them
to the necessity of calling a Convention at the
end of that time. He thought that Conventions
for many years to come, would he held not in
high repute in this State. He hoped if they
should reconsider, they would adopt this as an
auxiliary mode in aid of the one now adopted.
Mr. THOMAS made some further remarks.
The question was then stated to be on agreeing
to the motion to reconsider.
Mr. BOWIE demanded the yeas and nays,
Which being ordered,
Appeared as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't Morgan,
Blakistone, Dent, Lee, Chambers of Kent, Don-
aldson, Wells, Randall, Kent, Buchanan, John
Dennis, Williams, Hicks, Hodson, Goldsborough,
Eccleston, Phelps, Bowie, Tuck, Sprigg, Mc-
Cubbin, Bowling, Dirickson, McMaster, Hearn,
Fooks, Jacobs, Johnson, McHenry, Schley. Fie-
ry, Neill, John Newcomer, Harbine, Kilgour
and Smith—37.
Negative— Messrs. Howard, Bell, Welch, Lloyd,
Sherwood of Talbot, Colston, Constable, Miller,
McLane, Spencer, Grason, George, Wright,
Thomas, Shriver, Gaither, Biser, Annan, Sap-
pington, Stephenson, Magraw, Nelson, Carter,
Thawley, Hardcastle, Gwinn, Stewart of Balti-
more city, Brent of Baltimore city, Sherwood of
Baltimore city, Ware, Michael Newcomer,
Brewer, Anderson, Weber. Hollyday, Fitzpatrick,
Parke, Shower, Cockey and Brown—40.
So the Convention refused to reconsider.
The Convention then resumed the considera-
tion of the report of the committee on the Legis-
lative Department;
Mr. BRENT of Baltimore city, offered the fol-
lowing as an additional section to said report:
"The Legislature shall not hereafter incor-
porate any company for the transportation of
freight or passengers, without providing that
there shall be uniform rates or charges for all
such transportations in any given distance, nor
shall any further privileges or indulgence be grant-
ed by any future law to any existing company, in-
corporated for the transportation of freight or
passengers without providing and requiring that
there shall be uniform rates or charges tor all
such transportation in any given distance."
Mr. BRENT said that he offered this proposi-
tion to obtain perfect equality, he did not care
how or upon whom it operated—a perfect equali- |
