of others. You must construe the whole in-
strument, and not take that out and say that
it does not mean anything.
Now, suppose this was not known to be
the state of facts, and the interpretation as a
matter of fact which the bill received from
every member of the legislature, and the dis-
tinct understanding among the legislature
and among the people; what then is the mean-
ing of the language itself?
The gentleman from Anne Arundel (Mr.
Miller) says that not only must a man possess
all the qualifications fixed in the constitution
for a member of the house of delegates, but
that he shall not sit here if he has any of the
(qualifications. I ask if there is a word in
this bill about disqualifications. The gentle-
man read a long list of disqualifications, and
says that they constitute qualifications of
members. If black is white and white Is
black, and if qualification is disqualification,
1 admit the argument. What does the act of
assembly say, and what does the constitution
say? Here is a marginal note showing the
meaning—"qualifications of senators and
delegates." Here it says that no persons shall
be eligible who have not these qualifications.
The next section refers to persons who are
ineligible.
The gentleman asks whether it is not a
qualification that i person shall not be an
office bolder. When we refer to qualifica-
tions, we refer to age and citizenship, it is
not presumed that a man has an office unless
it is proved; but a man has to show by posi-
tive proof that he has the positive qualifica-
tions of citizenship and residence. This bill
says the qualifications shall be the same a
those required for a seat in the house of dele-
gates.
But as I have said, Mr. President, I don't
care whether this view is correct or not. I
say that that clause was put there with the
distinct understanding upon the part of the
legislature that that was its meaning, and
every man here knows that that was the
meaning of every man who voted for the con-
vention. I say that my friend from Prince
George's himself (Mr. Belt) and the gentleman
from Charles upon the other side of the house
(Mr. Edelen) are evidence of that fact. And
after the people have placed that construction
upon it, and sent them here in accordance with
that construction, to come here and press an
argument upon this body that we should turn
out on the last days of the session, one-third
of our members, is a matter which does not
deserve the attention of this body.
I go further, and say distinctly that now
whatever might be the facts or the law—
though there is neither fact nor law—on the
other side, I would not vote to turn out a man
the people have sent here. I do not care what
the judgment may be about the question of
law. It is a matter of fact that these gentle-
men themselves never found it out until a |
short time ago. It is a mare's nest got up
at the heel of the session, not even found be-
fore by the minority upon this floor. The
most distinguished man—if I can make dis-
tinctions among my friends upon the other
aide—the most distinguished lawyer among
them says there is no foundation for this
movement. I don't care what ground he puts
it on. I only take the fact. What is the use
of debating this question? What is the use
of wasting time now, when upon such grounds
and at such a time they ask us to turn out
one-third of the members of this body? I
have said so much for the purpose of indi-
cating what I conceive to be the history' of
this transaction—what I know to be its his-
tory. I am not disposed to say any more ;
and I do not think we ought to say any more;
and I therefore move the previous question.
Mr. BOND. Will the gentleman withdraw
that motion a few minutes ?
Mr. STIRLING. I withdraw it. us the gen-
tleman is a member of the committee.
Mr. BOND. As a member of the committee
I wish to indicate what my views were in
signing this report. I go further than the
gentleman from Baltimore city, in regard to
the sovereign power of the. people; and say
that in my opinion the people in the election
could exercise all their sovereign power in
electing delegates to this convention. They
were not bound either by the old or by the
existing constitution, or by the act of assem-
bly providing for this convention. If I am
asked by my colleague from Anne Arundel
(Mr. Miller) how it is that we have conformed
in some respects to the act of assembly, I say
the people were willing to adopt the time of
holding the election to the convention; they
were willing to perform the duty of taking
the oath when they came here as a political
body, not as a matter which they were bound
to do, but as a mere suggestion that such an
oath would be reasonable and proper, al-
though I did not concur in that myself.
1 say that in every view, the people acting
in their sovereign capacity, in the election of
delegates to this convention, were not bound
either by the act of assembly or by the consti-
tution. If there had been any mode by which
the people could have expressed their opinion
that their delegates sent here should not con-
form to the requisitions of that law, in taking
the oath, I should have said they were del-
egates without taking the oath. As there
were no means by which they could express
an opinion upon the subject, we conformed to
the suggestion. So it was with regard to the
time of holding the convention) and with re-
gard to every matter provided for in the act
of assembly; the people had a right to look
upon it as a suggestion merely, and that they
were not bound by it.
Those were my views when I signed the re-
port. I say again that it was on the ground
that the people, acting in their sovereign ca- |
