shall be exercised in the mode that they
themselves have agreed upon. That was the
idea that presented itself to my mind some
days ago, when I first read .over this hill of
rights. I have not put my amendment in
the form that the people have not the right
to alter or change their form of Government
in any other mode, for that right has been
exercised so frequently that I do not think it
worth while to dispute it. I concede that
right; but at the same time I think it should
be accompanied by the declaration that all
alterations of the Constitution should be
made in the mode and manner which the
people themselves have previously prescribed.
Mr. NEGLEY. I think that the most con-
clusive argument against this limitation upon
the ''unalienable right" of the people of Ma-
ryland " to alter, reform or abolish their
form of Government in such manner as they
may deem expedient," has been adduced by
the gentleman from Somerset, (Mr. Jones.)
He has shown that the people of Maryland
are so given to revolution, so firmly fixed in
their determination to disregard all constitu-
tional restrictions upon this right, that they
will call Conventions and make Constitutions
in violation of any law, or any provision
which may be inserted in the organic and
fundamental law of the State. Why, sir, he
says that in 1850, in direct violation of the
Constitution of 1776, they passed a law calling
a Convention; and according to the
thread of the gentleman's argument, that
call and that Convention were as absolutely
and unconditionally revolutionary as was
the meeting of Mr. Dorr and his associates in
the State of Rhode Island. That Convention
had no authority of Constitutional law, and
not having that authority, it was unconstitu-
tional and revolutionary.
Mr. JONES, of Somerset. There was this
difference between that Convention and the
Rhode Island case: that Convention had the
previous assent of the Legislative Department
of Maryland; a most important difference
and distinction.
Mr. NEGLEY. Grant that it had the assent
of the Legislative Department of Maryland ;
but that Legislature had no more right to
legislate in that particular way than Mr. Dorr
and his associates had a right to get up a
revolution in Rhode Island, in their particu-
lar way. In point of fact there is absolutely
no difference between the two cases, so far as
the revolutionary principle is concerned. The
one was a revolution entirely without the
forms of law, and the other was a revolution,
partly in compliance with law, but in the
grand, moving, revolutionary element, it was
in violation of law.
And according to the argument of the gen-
tleman, the present Convention is in violation
of law; in violation of the Constitution of
1851. We are then assembled here as a
revolutionary body. And the people, or a |
majority of them, sanctioned the Constitution
framed by that revolutionary Convention,
and thereby .made it legal. And what was
that, but a recognition and assertion of the
principle contained in this first article '' that
they (the people) have at all times the un-
alienable right to alter, reform or abolish
their form of Government in such manner as
they may deem expedient," whether in con-
formity with or in opposition to our Consti-
tutional provisions and restrictions.
Now, sir, there are apparently three modes
of revolution indicated by the discussion here
to-day. There is a revolution in conformity
to law, according to which the gentleman from
Somerset (Mr. Jones) would have all revolu-
tions take place in Maryland: or rather all
reformations in the fundamental law. There
is that mode of reformation; a reformation
strictly in compliance with the fundamental
law of the State. Then there is another
form of reformation, or revolution, which
was adopted in 1850, and which, according
to the argument of the gentleman from Som-
erset is now again adopted; a revolution in
reforming the fundamental law of the State,
partly according to law, and partly not. The
other was legal revolution; this is a revolu-
tion illegal in part. Then there is another
form of revolution outside both of them; that
is a revolution by force, which nobody doubts
the right of the people to exercise. Indeed,
I suppose nobody will question now the inal-
ienable right of the people to resort to either
of these three forms of revolution. And the
facts adduced by the gentleman from Somer-
set show most conclusively the utter folly and
absurdity of limiting this right resident in
the people.
I admit, however, that there is not only
apparently but substantially a contradiction
between this first article and the 44th article
of this bill of rights, and I think the 44th
article should be made to conform to the
first. I do not see bow the Convention of
1850, after having passed the first article of
the bill of rights, could at the end of that
bill of rights have inserted this other arti-
cle, because it is a direct denial and contra-
diction of the first article in part. I am op-
posed to the amendment offered by the gen-
tleman from Somerset. I am opposed to this
restriction. The bistory of the State of Ma-
ryland, the history of the country, show that
there is no use in such restrictions.
Let us pass this article, acknowledging
this inviolable right in the people. Is
there are any danger in acknowledging that
right? It is not an acknowledgment of the
propriety of exercising it at all times and un-
der all circumstances. It does not say to the
people of Maryland—you better adopt the
revolutionary and forcible right of reforming
your government, rather than the legal and
peaceable one. It is merely an acknowledg-
ment, in an abstract way, of a fundamental |
