tional power, so far as the written Constitu-
tion existing at that time was concerned, it
bad the assent of the legislative department
of the Government; and when it was adopted
by the people, and received the assent of the
executive and judicial departments of the
Government, there was no opposition to it,
but went quietly into operation. There was
a revolution effected in the State of Maryland,
in her organic law, as full and thorough as
ever was effected in any government upon
earth. The old Government was literally
swept away, and a new Government inaugu-
rated in its stead, with the consent of the old
Government and by the power and authority
of the people.
Now, sir, the people in that case exercised
the very power which is asserted in this first
article of the Bill of Rights. And after that
example in the State of Maryland, I think it
utterly useless to attempt to put any restric-
tions upon this right of the people, as they
will be of no avail whenever the people get
ready to disregard those restrictions. But
at the same time I do think it of the utmost
importance to stability, good order and quiet,
and everything that pertains to legal govern-
ment, that there should accompany this de-
claration and admission, astatement that the
alterations to be made in the form of govern-
ment, ought to conform to the prescribed
mode which the people themselves have laid
down for the government of their agents.
I gave the questions involved in the as-
sembling of the Convention of 1850 the most
grave consideration. I was opposed to that
extent, to that mode of altering our organic
law, that although partial friends solicited
me to be a candidate for that Convention I
positively declined, upon the ground that I
could not aid in establishing the doctrine that
a majority of the people in a State should set
aside what had been agreed upon in the or-
ganic law as the mode of alteration, and thus
by a revolution impose a new Constitution
upon all the people of the State. I was gov-
erned perhaps) more than by any fear of con-
sequences to the State of Maryland, by a
regard for what has been very appropriately
called by Mr. Webster, " the American Sys-
tem of Government." Whenever these doc-
trines, which appear for the present to be so
prevalent, of the absolute right of the abso-
lute majority of the people of a State, to
sweep away all existing institutions, and to
establish new ones in their stead: whenever
those doctrines are recognized as applying to
a State, it will not be a very great stretch of
political construction to carry them beyond
State lines, and make them applicable to the
Constitution and Government of the United
States.
We have limited governments in the
States; and one of the limitations which
the people put upon their rulers under the
governments they established, was in refer- |
ence to the mode of altering and changing
those Governments. Under the Constitution
of the United States the Government of the
United States 'is limited; and one of the re-
strictions put upon that Government is that
amendments and alterations of that Consti-
tution shall he made only in a particular
way. Now will it be held that the majority
of the people of the United States may get
up a National Convention without regard to
the mode prescribed by the Constitution?
Will it be held that the Congress of the
United States can by law provide that a
National Convention should be assembled to
make a new Constitution, without regarding
State lines, or grants of power, or restrictions
upon grants of power? That would be a
revolution as fully and entire ly as if ac-
complished by force of arms. And yet that
is but the logical result of the doctrines now
becoming so prevalent among us.
I think, therefore, that it is important,
whenever we make general statements of the
unalienable rights of the people, to accom-
pany those declarations by an expression of
opinion as to the best manner in which those
rights should be exercised. I hold them to
be unalienable. I hold that whenever it
has been once sovereign, and so acknowl-
edged by the nations of the world, that sov-
ereignty is unalienable. The people may
agree to put restrictions upon themselves in
the exercise of their rights. But the unalienable
right of self-government—and that
is the only kind of sovereignty recognized in
this country for people acknowledged as
forming sovereign States—the right of self-
government pertains to and inheres in the
people; and when the mode of alteration
and amendment has been agreed upon, it is
the part of good faith—it involves the same
principle which binds us to obey the laws
and the government under which we live; it
is the part of good faith, on the part of all
who come after us, to follow the mode pre-
viously agreed upon by the people them-
selves, and prescribed in the Constitution.
Now, sir, my friends here who have com-
mented upon the objections popularly dis-
cussed to the assembling of the present Con-
vention, in my view have not yet stated the
true ground upon which the objections to
the present Convention were predicated.
With reference to the former Legislature, it
has been said that it was the duty of that
Legislature to have framed a law to take the
sense of the people upon calling a Conven-
tion; and that if that had been done, the
sense of the people should have been taken
at the last November election, in conformity
with the provisions of the Constitution. But
that Legislature failed to discharge its duty
in so providing for taking the sense of the
people. Now I have understood, from some
of those who were members of that Legisla-
ture, that they did not consider that the |
