it is competent for the people in delegating
that sovereignty to limit it. Holding that opin-
ion, I think it is perfectly consistent with
that view that this provision of the present
Constitution should stand as it is. When
they undertake to act under an organized
government, it is competent for them to state
that certain powers have been taken away
from them. I want it to be clearly set forth
in this provision that, when they shall have
adopted this Constitution, it will be incom-
petent for them to go behind it except in the
mode of resorting to forcible revolution. I
only want that wo should say to the people,
the generation that shall follow us, and the
people in all time to come, that if they shall
undertake by any action of theirs to modify
this form of government unless in the mode
indicated here, it must be a resort to violent
revolution. That is not the kind of revolu-
tion ordinarily practised heretofore in this
country. In that view of it, I see no incon-
sistency.
Mr. CLARKE, I rise, not for the purpose of
entering into a discussion of the question
which has arisen, but to say that I do not
think the amendment of the gentleman from
Calvert is subject to the criticism made by
the gentleman from Baltimore city (Mr.
Stockbridge. ) Chief Justice Dorsey was the
chairman of this committee in the last Con-
vention, and I should hardly suppose a man
as learned in the law as lie would have com-
mitted such a mistake, and that it would have
been reserved to the gentleman from Balti-
more city to have, for the first time, found it
out. The preamble reads thus :
" We, the people of the State of Maryland,
grateful to Almighty God for our civil and
religious liberty, and taking into our serious
consideration the best means of establishing
a good i constitution in this State for the sure
foundation and more permanent security
thereof, declare—"
For the purpose of establishing a good
Constitution, we, the people of the State of
Maryland, declare "that all government of
right originates from the people, is founded
in compact only, and instituted solely for the
good of the whole." That is the announce-
ment of a general principle. "And they
have at all times, in the mode prescribed in
this Constitution, the unalienable right to
alter, reform or abolish their form of govern-
ment in such manner as they may deem ex-
pedient," I understand " they " as referring
back to " we, the people of Maryland." We
the people of Maryland, have at all times, in
the mode prescribed by this Constitution, the
right to alter, reform or abolish our form of
government in such manner as we may deem
expedient.
Mr. SANDS. I do not propose to enter into
the merits of the controversy with regard to
the proper wording of this article, for I think
the amendment open to a graver objection |
Certainly the incorporation of the words now
offered as an amendment by the gentleman
from Calvert, Into the present Constitution,
gave rise to great difficulties, and there were
very lengthy and protracted debates upon the
question of calling this Convention. Art.
43d, in the Declaration of Rights, says :
"That this Constitution shall not be al-
tered, changed or abolished except in the
manner therein prescribed and directed."
Now, if gentlemen will turn to the present
Constitution they will find the following pro-
vision.
" Art. 11. It shall be the duty of the Leg-
islature, at its first session immediately suc-
ceeding the returns of every census of the
United States hereafter taken, to pass a law
for ascertaining, at the next general election
1 of delegates, the sense of the people of Mary-
land in regard to calling a Convention for
altering the Constitution; and in case the
majority of votes cast at said election shall be
in favor of calling a Convention, the Legis-
lature shall provide for assembling such Con-
! vention, and electing delegates thereto at the
earliest convenient day; <?.and the delegates to
the said Convention shall be elected by the
several counties of this State and the city of
Baltimore, in proportion to their representa-
tion respectively in the Senate and House of
Delegates at. the time when said Convention
may be called."
The difficulty arose in this way. The Con-
stitution, they said, prescribed the manner of
its own alteration, and it was argued by the
enemies of the calling of this Convention,
that that direction in the Constitution having
been neglected, the next session of the Legislature
after the taking of the census not hav-
ing called a Convention, no subsequent Leg-
islature had the right, power and authority to
do it. That was the position, as I understand
it, taken here by gentlemen who opposed the
calling of this Convention. Not being a mem-
ber of the Legislature, I did not myself hear
the debates but I saw it stated in the papers,
1 and I know that was their point. We had
no right to a Convention at all, because the
mode and manner prescribed by the Consti-
tution had not been followed. The difficulty
arose simply from the existence of the 43d
Article, and the words which the gentleman
now proposes to put in the first. That I un-
derstand to have been the difficulty in the
way of calling this Convention. I shall vote
against the amendment because I desire to
see no such difficulty in the future.
I think the principle enunciated in this first
article is good. It is true •' that all govern-
ment, of right, originates from the people, is
founded in compact only, and instituted solely
for the good of the whole; and they have at
all times the unalienable right to alter, reform
or abolish their form of government in such
manner as they may deem expedient," 1
think, too, that this is a consistent interpre- |
