and I was perfectly astonished upon taking up
my neighbor's copy of the report (for I have
none of my own) to find that the 43d article
of the bill of rights of the last Convention
was not incorporated in it.
Mr. HEBB, The gentleman is correct. That
article was adopted by the Committee, and I
supposed it had been printed in their report.
The PRESIDENT. The article referred to is
printed in the journal, where it will be found
on page 65. It is omitted in this copy of the
report by error of the printer.
Mr. CHAMBERS. This is the article: "That
this Constitution shall not bealtered, changed
or abolished except in the manner therein pre-
scribed and directed."
Now I am not aware that there is anywhere
in this State a class of politicians, designated
by any phrase or term, who maintain the doc-
trine that there ought not lo be some mode
prescribed by which the people can express their
desire by legislative enactment to peaceably
change their Constitution.
With regard to what has been said by the
gentleman from Howard (Mr. Sands) I have
only to say that I am illuminated by his in-
formation; what he has told us is entirely
new to me. I have circulated through por-
tions of this State; I have been in counties
where a very large majority were opposed to
the calling of this Convention, and I have
conversed here with a great many gentleman
who represent that class of people; and until
the gentleman made the statement here, I
never heard it whispered that the objection to
this convention was that which he has stated,
viz: that the Legislature that called this Con-
vention had no power to do so.
Mr. SANDS. I did not say that the people
believed that the Legislature had no right to
call a Convention; but that the objection was
made by some was, that the Legislature which
was directed by the present Constitution to
call the Convention having failed to do so, no
subsequent Legislature had that right.
Mr. CHAMBERS. The argument then was
this: Ten years after the session of the last
Convention the Legislature was to make a call
for at new Convention; the Legislature not
having performed that duty precisely at the
expiration of the ten years, then they had no
power to call a Convention; in that respect
they were functus officio. Now I can say that
I never heard that doctrine expressed by any
human being until I heard it to-day from the
lips of the gentleman from Howard (Mr.
Sands.) Suppose that the Legislature had
been directed to pass forty laws soon after
the adoption of the Constitution, as they were
directed; some of them they neglected to pass
for ten years. If they neglect to do so to-day,
do they forfeit their right to pass those laws
to-morrow? I have too much intelligence to
use or adopt any such argument as that. We
repudiate that entirely, so far as I am informed.
The Legislature, it is true, should have passed |
the law as directed; nobody doubts that; they
should have obeyed literally the direction of
the Constitution. But having failed literally
to obey it, they were bound as soon afterwards
MB possible to repair the neglect of the preced-
ing Legislature. My friends, and I have con-
sulted several of them, tell me that they never
heard any such suggestion as that betore,
Mr. SANDS, if the gentleman will refer to
the message of Gov. Bradford be will find
reference there to this very argument against
the Convention.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Was he among the class
that opposed this Convention?
Mr. SANDS. No, sir; but in his message he
endeavors to meet this doctrine urged against
the call of the Convention. It is not confined
to myself.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Then the gentleman has
one individual to sustain him in his posi-
tion, and that is one more than I supposed he
had.
1 presume my friend from Calvert county
(Mr Briscoe) will not press his amendment
here, upon finding that his proposition is vir-
tually embodied in the bill of rights as re-
ported; because the bill of rights is to be
taken together as a whole, and this proposi-
tion being in a different position upon the
face of the paper will make no odds. In
regard to the verbal criticism which has been
made here I have nothing to say. But 1
maintain the absolute necessity of adopting
some provision of the kind offered by my
friend from Calvert, (Mr. Briscoe ) But 1
should not have troubled the House at all ex-
cept that there was no such provision in the
printed copy I examined. I am happy to find
that the recollection of the gentleman from
Allegany (Mr. Hebb) agrees with my own,
that such a provision was adopted by the
Committee, and that the entry upon the journal
confirms the fact which I am sure existed,
that this was adopted without any amount of
difficulty or comment.
Mr. SCHLEY. I desire to say in explanation,
that I had only consulted the journal of pro-
ceedings of this body, and did not read this
printed paper until my attention was called
to the fact that the 44th article as reported
had not been printed in it. Of course I know
that such an article was common to the two
Constitutions we have been living under, and
1 supposed that to renew it in this first article
would be superfluous and unnecessary, and
would indicate a disposition to infringe upon
the absolute right of the people there an-
nounced.
Mr. PUGH. I am opposed to the amend-
ment of the gentleman from Calvert, (Mr
Briscoe,) for the reason that I think it only
mystifies the subject. If it is in order to make
any amendment—
Mr. BRISCOE. If the gentleman will allow
me, I will simply state that I have fallen into
the very error into which it seems a great |
