ciple laid down in this first article as it
stands; that is admitted by all. One gen-
tleman has said that he has never met with
any man who denied the right of revolution;
certainly not. But as be also stated, and as
was very fully argued by Mr. Webster in the
Rhode Island case, we had fancied that the
statesmen of America had devised a mode
whereby the organic law of the land might
be altered and amended without a resort to
that which is called "revolution," and
which, under other governments, is usually
accompanied bybloodshed and violence.
It is, sir, for the purpose of having a mode
of alteration previously known and agreed
upon and written, that our form of Constitu-
tions have been devised and adopted. In
other lands the Constitutions and laws de-
pend upon a variety of traditions and stat-
utes, and a long series of ages of govern-
ment. The powers of government are de-
scribed and understood in that way. That
is the mode in which the British Constitu-
tion, as it is called, is prescribed. But our
Constitutions are written agreements upon
the part of the people, prescribing to those
entrusted with power the extent of that pow-
er, and the mode in which it is to be exer-
cised. The people of this country have no-
where conferred upon either State or general
governments all powers of government.
They have always in their State or general
'governments reserved to themselves most
important powers, political powers, which
they have authorized no government on
earth to exercise tor them, or to legislate
upon tor them. They have expressly inhib-
ited any invasion of those powers by any
governments they have established or may
hereafter establish.
Now, sir, all the old Constitutions, adopt-
ed in our revolutionary times, prescribed a
mode of amendment tor the purpose of avoid-
ing the necessity of a resort to revolution.
It was supposed that in the changes of so-
ciety—for the forms of government then
adopted were experiments—in the lapse of
years, there would probably be amendments
and alterations required; and the mode in
which those amendments and alterations
were to be made was agreed upon as a part
of the organic law laid down by the people
for their own guidance in making those al-
terations and amendments. That was the
case with all the Constitutions.
But the condition of the State of Maryland
was somewhat peculiar. At that time each
county claimed an equality in the represen-
tation of political power. Each county had
an equality of representation in the Revolu-
tionary Convention. Recognizing the fact
that the geographical position of Maryland
was peculiar; that when the settlements of
the State upon (he Western Shore should ex-
tend westwardly, filling up its territory with
a large population, the eastern counties |
would cot be enabled to maintain their posi-
tion of power and equality of rights, there
was a provision inserted in the Constitution
of 1776, which the Legislature was to have
no power to alter. Hence it was that it re-
quired three-fourths of the Legislature to pass
any law that particularly affected the East-
ern Shore of the State. With reference to
the mode of amendment, that Constitution
prescribed that there should be no alteration
of that Constitution unless an act tor that
purpose was passed by one Legislature, pub-
lished three months, I believe, before the elec-
tion of the members of another Legislature,
and after full knowledge and opportunity for
discussion by the people, the proposed amend-
ment was ratified by that subsequent Legis-
lature. Now the obvious purpose of that pro-
vision was to prevent hasty, rash, injurious
and unjust amendments to the Constitution
from being suddenly foisted upon the peo-
ple.
We lived under that form of government
for three-quarters of a century, and very im-
portant amendments were made to it at vari-
ous stages of our history. There was an
amendment made about 1301 to 1805, which
involved almost a revolution as far as the
right of suffrage and other matters were con-
cerned. Again in 1836 a reform movement
brought about other very important modifi-
cations. But yet the spirit of revolution,
impatient of the restraints which the wisdom
and the prudence of our fathers had imposed
in regard to alterations of the organic law of
the State; impatient of that mode of altera-
tion, succeeded in inducing the Legislature
to pass an act calling a Convention for the
purpose of amending and altering the Con-
stitution, making a new Constitution.
Now that was not the mode of alteration
prescribed by the organic law of the State.
I have ever considered it—and I mean of
course no sort of reflection upon the very
able and learned gentlemen who composed
that Convention—I have ever considered that
Convention as revolutionary; not in the sense
in which that word is usually used, but in the
sense of being opposed to the mode prescribed
by the organic law. It was, however, a revo-
lution which the people of the State evidently
willed, because they sanctioned it by their
votes; and the Constitution under which we
are now living received its sanction from the
vote of the people approving and adopting it.
Of course those gentlemen who met here and
framed that Constitution, met very much un-
der the same circumstances and with the same
powers as the National Convention which met
in 1787, which adopted a Constitution and
submitted it to the States for their approval
or rejection. That Constitution was not held
to be binding upon any one until it was ac-
cepted and ratified by the people. And al-
though the Convention of 1850 was called by
the Legislature in the exercise of unconstitu- |
