time had arrived, when they were in session,
at which, under the 11th article of the pre-
sent Constitution, they were authorized to
pass a law for taking the sense of the people
in regard lo calling a Convention. That
11th article provides:
" It shall be the duty of the Legislature,
at its first session immediately succeeding the
returns of every census of the United States
hereafter taken," &c.
I understand that even when that Legisla-
ture adjourned the returns of that census
bad not been made to the proper authorities
in Washington. That I understand to be a
matter of fact. It was the first Legislature,
that met immediately succeeding the returns
of the census, that was authorized to pass a
law for taking the sense of the people in re-
lation to calling a Convention. If those re-
turns were not made during the session of
the former Legislature—but were made, as I
suppose they must have been, before the
meeting of the last Legislature—then the
last Legislature was the one whose duty it was
—"to pass a law for ascertaining, at the
next general election of delegates, the sense
of the people of Maryland in regard to call-
ing a Convention for altering the Constitu-
tion."
Now, sir, that was the plain letter of the
Constitution as framed by the learned gentle-
men who assembled here in 1851, and wheth-
er it was the duty of the one Legislature or
the other, whether the former Legislature
discharged its duty or not, still the express
language of the Constitution is, that when-
ever the Legislature did pass a law for taking
the sense of the people, it should be taken
"at the next general election of delegates;"
and, under the Constitution, it could be taken
at no other time. But the last Legislature,
just as the Legislature that called the Con-
vention of 1850, disregarded the mode pre-
scribed by the Constitution, and the Legisla-
ture directed that the sense of the people
should be taken upon the 6th of April last,
and that the people should at the same time
vote for delegates to this Convention, I
suppose they had the power of providing for
the election of delegates then, because the
taking their seats was conditional upon the
sense of the people to be then ascertained.
But it was not precisely the mode authorized
by the present Constitution, Still, they had
as much power to do that as to call a Con-
ventional all. The 11th article provides,
in addition to what I have already read :
—" and in case the majority of votes cast at
said election shall be in favor of calling a
Convention, the Legislature shall provide for
assembling such Convention and electing
delegates thereto at the earliest convenient
day."
Evidently this 11th article of the Constitu-
tion intended that, after the ten years had
elapsed, and the census returns had been |
made, the Legislature assembling next after
the making of those census returns should
pass a law to ascertain the sense of the peo-
ple; that that sense of the people should be
taken at the next general election of dele-
gates; and that the Legislature elected at
that next general election should pass a law
for calling that Convention. And all this
was intended for the purpose of providing a
mole of altering and amending the Constitu-
tion, which should be not sudden, not rash,
not intolerant, but with time for full delib-
eration and consideration among the people
after the law was passed; for it would have
taken two years to have assembled a Conven-
tion under the provisions of that article. It
intended that the vote should be taken, not
at a special election, but at a general elec-
tion, at the usual time for electing delegates
to the Legislature, and then, if the majority
of the people was found to be in favor of a
Convention, the General Assembly then elect-
ed should provide for the assembling of the
Convention,
Now the result is this: We have bad, in-
cluding the present, two Constitutional Con-
ventions in the State of Maryland that were
unconstitutional. That is a paradoxical
statement, I admit. But we have two Con-
ventions called to frame a new Constitution
for the State of Maryland in violation of the
prescribed mode of the Constitution under
which the Legislature was held which passed
the law calling the Convention together, and
1 do think that this Convention is strictly
and technically just as revolutionary as the
Convention of 1850, in which my friend from
Kent (Mr. Chambers) and my colleague
(tie. Dennis) served as delegates. Still there
is a healing balm for all irregularities in the
fact that our work here is, I trust, to bepub-
lished after it shall have been completed, and
is to go before the people, and the opportu-
nity afforded them to understand and scruti-
nize the alterations and amendments in the
organic law of the State which we may pro-
pose, and they can quietly at the polls pass
in approval upon the Constitution under
which they are to live until another revolu-
tion of this kind takes place. How frequent
those revolutions will be in Maryland I can-
not undertake to say.
But I do say that I think it is a bad cus-
tom; one in violation of the American sys-
tem; one fur which I do not think there has
been any imperative necessity. And I think
that whatever may have been the practice in
the past, we ought to see that in the future
the mode of amendment and alteration we
may agree upon here. and which the people,
when they shall pass upon this Constitution
shall adopt as their will upon the subject,
shall be regarded and not violated by the
Government organized under the new Con-
stitution; and that the right of the people
to alter and amend their form of Government |
