right of the people of Maryland. Therefore
I am in favor of this article as it stands, and
against the proposed amendment, or any other
limitation or restriction of that right. This
article of the bill of rights, as it now stands,
was very fully discussed and very elaborately
argued in the last Convention. And upon
that argument it was adopted and inserted in
the Constitution. And I cannot see how in
the world that Convention afterwards inserted
the 44th article in that bill of rights. I am
in favor of this first article as it now stands,
and of making the 44th article conform to it.
Mr. DENNIS. I have but a few words to
say, and shall endeavor to confine myself to
the merits of the subject before the Conven-
tion. I understand the amendment proposed
by my colleague (Mr. Jones) in effect to be
that the form of government we may here de-
vise ought not to be changed except in conformity
to the mode which may be therein
prescribed. Now the 44th article which the
Committee on the bill of rights have reported
is tantamount to the same thing. It provides :
" That this Constitution shall not be alter-
ed, changed or abolished except in the man-
ner therein prescribed and directed,"
So that really those members of the Con-
vention who advocate and sustain the amend-
ment are advocating and sustaining an article
not yet before the Convention. And those
gentlemen who are opposing this amendment
are opposing the proposition contained in the
44th article of the bill of rights as reported
by the committee. I suppose, however, it is
the same thing whether the discussion takes
place now or hereafter; because the principle
involved being the same, it matters not wheth-
er the discussion takes place at the commence-
ment or at the close of the bill of rights. I
take it for granted then that we who sustain
the report of the committee are to sustain it
against the assaults and attacks of those gen-
tlemen who oppose the amendments of the
gentleman from Calvert (Mr. Briscoe) and of
my colleague from Somerset (Mr. Jones.)
Now what is this first article? It is true
it is but the assertion of mere abstract rights.
But it has always been understood, and this
Convention well knows the importance, nay,
sir, the absolute necessity of laying down
these abstract principles upon true and earnest
grounds, because they, with the Constitution
which is hereafter to be adopted, form the
substratum upon which the whole legislation
of this State must rest, for these declarations
of abstract principles have always been treat-
ed as a part of the fundamental law of the
land. it is therefore necessary to have these
abstract truths clearly and earnestly set forth.
This first article says :
"That all government of right originates
from the people, is founded in compact only
and instituted solely for the good of the
whole; and they have at all times the unalien-
able right to alter, reform or abolish their |
form of government in such manner as they
may deem expedient."
The amendment now under consideration
proposes to limit the universality of that
rule, and it strikes me as eminently proper
that it should be limited. It may be true
that all government originates from the peo-
ple, that it is founded in compact only, and
that it is instituted solely for the good of the
whole But while it is undeniably true that
they have the right to alter or reform or abol-
ish their form of government, does it neces-
sarily follow that the good of the community,
the good of the whole, will be promoted by
this wild hurricane rage to which all com-
munities are liable? Does it follow that this
power which resides in a community is best
exerted by a mere majority of the community
whenever they may get together? Because
the majority outnumbers the minority, it may
be by one only, should that majority do what
it pleases, when it pleases, and where it
pleases? I acknowledge no such doctrine.
1 am for liberty regulated by law, the law
which every man knows, and to which every
man can appeal. Liberty without law is not
liberty; it is but the license to do whatever
the will of the majority may impose upon the
minority.
How is tills unalienable right to alter, reform
or abolish to be exercised, if it is not
to be done in conformity with the laws of the
land? Will gentlemen please tell me how it is
to be done, where it is to be done, and when
it is to be done? Cain a mere numerical ma-
jority assemble anywhere and whenever they
please, and upturn the existing institutions
of the land, and cast loose all the elements
of society? And is society to become a
wreck because a mere majority may choose
to say so? Are they to assemble whenever
they please, without notice to others of the
community who are to be affected by their
action; assemble in any place they please,
to which access perhaps may be debarred
others equally interested with themselves?
Should not all these considerations betaken
into view by the members of this Conven-
tion before they determine the unalienable
right of a mere majority to change, alter or
abolish existing institutions whenever that
majority may choose to exercise that power?
"Originates from the people." Who con-
stitute the people? Is there any limit upon
that declaration? Will gentlemen who urge
these wild vagaries of their imagination, if I
may call them so, tell me who are the people
to exercise these rights, who are the people
who are to step forth in all the majesty of
power—it may be in a majority of one only
—and say to the minority of only one: we
will plant our heels upon your necks, and
make you submit to whatever we see fit to
impose upon you? Are "the people," the
people of the entire State, every man, woman
and child in the State; or are they merely |
