Mr. BRISCOE said: I move to insert after
the word "times" the words "in the mode
prescribed in this Constitution," This will
make it conform to the present Constitution.
I do not know that it is necessary for me to
go into the argument now, or to give the
reasons why I am disposed to adhere to that
article of the Constitution as it exists now in
the Constitution, for I believe they are patent
to the mind of every gentleman here; and so
far as regards the form of that article, it is a
question which gave rise to. considerable dis-
cussion at the time the Legislature of Mary-
land were in the act of calling this Conven-
tion. I believe it has been conceded in the
political theory of this country that, when
any action at all is taken to modify or change
the organic law of the State, it should be pre-
ceded by some legislative action directing the
mode and manner in which the Convention
to change the organic law of the State should
assemble. The precedents for that are with-
out number. I believe there has hardly been
a State in the Union where the legislative au-
thority has nut very clearly indicated or es-
tablished by law the mode and manner in
which the Convention should assemble to
change the organic law.
I believe it is contended by some gentle-
men that it is competent for the people of this
or of any other State ', at any time they choose,
without the intervention of legislative forms
or countenance, to hold primary assemblies
in the State; and that principle is carried so
far as to maintain that, without any inter-
position of the legislative authority, or pre
caution as to the mode in which the vote
shall be taken, the people in those primary
meetings could change the organic law.
My whole object in offering this amend-
ment is, that the Bill of Rights shall not be
construed to carry the principle to that ex-
tent. The framers of the Constitution as it
now stands, in order to avoid all misconcep-
tion upon that point, incorporated this provi-
sion. I remember very well that, in the. ar-
gument made by Mr. Webster in the Rhode
Island case, he said that there was no prece-
dent, in this country, where there were no
legislative directions for assembling the Con-
vention. The difficulty arose in the Rhode
Island case in this way: The people there
had been living under the old chartered gov-
ernment of Charles II, and the forms of their
charter did not provide any mode for calling
a Convention; and they undertook to adopt
this mode of calling a Convention in the State
of Rhode Island, which gave rise to the Dorr
Rebellion. The ease is very familiar to mem-
bers of the profession, or those who have
read the political history of the country.
In order to avoid misconception upon that
point, and a. misconstruction of the Constitu-
tion, I have offered this amendment. I should
have preferred that some member of the com-
mittee should have moved to incorporate such |
a provision in the Bill of Rights, but as they
have not I make the motion, to avoid mis-
conception, because I know very well that in
the argument that took place with regard to
the calling of this very Convention now as-
sembled here, when I took the ground that it
was not competent for even the Legislature,
excepting by a strict construction of the Con-
stitution as it now stands, to call this assem-
bly, I was referred by gentlemen to this arti-
cle of the Constitution, which said that the
people have, at all times , the right to assem-
ble; and the argument was used then that it
was competent for them, non obstante the re-
striction of the Constitution, to call a Conven-
tion when they might please, provided that
they might think the public welfare and the
general good required it. I think, therefore,
in order to make this more distinct, that we
should incorporate the amendment I have
offered, and not depart from the present Con-
stitution.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. Without undertaking
at all to speak for the Committee which re
ported this Declaration of Rights, of which
I have not the honor of being a member, it
occurs to me that there is one serious objec-
tion to the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Calvert (Mr. Briscoe.) The article
as it stands declares a universal truth, not
alone for the State of Maryland or any other
individual State, but for all States. "All
government of right originates from the peo-
ple, is founded in compact only, and insti-
tuted solely for the good of the whole," and
the people " have at all times the unaalienable
right to alter, reform or abolish their form of
government in such manner as they may
deem expedient." Now, if the mode is to be
put in, it seems to me to make it an absurdity
upon its face to claim that the people of other
States and elsewhere have no right to alter,
reform or abolish their form of government
except in the manner prescribed by the Constitution
of Maryland. The Constitution of
the United States prescribes one form, and the
Constitution of each State its own form for
amendments; but this amendment would tie
all governments down to the particular form
prescribed by this Constitution.
Mr. BRISCOE, it occurs to me that the
phraseology adopted in the present Constitu-
tion of Maryland is susceptible of the same
misconstruction If the gentleman under-
takes to start out with laying down an ab-
stract truth, we may go into an argument
upon that. I believe it is the theory of some
that it is impossible for a sovereign power to
limit itself. According to the conception I
have formed of the principles of political gov-
ernment in this country, I hold that it is com-
petent for a sovereignty or a delegated power
to limit itself as to the mode, or to tie its
hands as to the mode by which it shall do a
certain thing. If that objection applies, it
raises that question. I undertake to say that |
