" 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, according
to the mode prescribed in this Constitution,
the unalienable right to alter, reform or
abolish their form of government in such
manner as they may deem expedient."
Now between that article and the 43d arti-
cle of the present Constitution there is no in-
consistency whatever. That 43d article de-
clares :
"That this Constitution shall not be
altered, changed or abolished except in the
manner therein prescribed and directed."
But if you adopt this first article here as
it now stands, without amendment, and then
adopt the 44th article of this report, you have
two inconsistent declarations coming from
precisely the same authority and declared by
the same people; who declare in the one that
"they have at all times the unalterable
right to alter, reform or abolish their form
of government in such manner as they may
deem expedient;" and then, in the other,
that this form of government, "this Consti-
tution, shall nut be altered, changed or
abolished except in the manner therein pre-
scribed and directed " Now I say that is an
inconsistency from which this Convention in
some way must make its escape. Now, ac-
cording to my view of the case, I would
strike out altogether the latter part of this
first article, and leave it to stand as it did in
the old bill of rights of 1776, simply a dec-
laration against monarchical "forms of gov-
ernment, " that all government of right orig-
inates from the people, is founded in compact
only, and instituted solely for the good of
the whole." I would have it to stand there,
resting this revolutionary right, about which
so much has been said, upon the 5th article
in the present bill of rights, which declares
and asserts, as the Declaration of Indepen-
dence declared and asserted, the right of
revolution. But if this Convention is to
adopt this article as it now stands in this
report, they must either adopt the amend-
ment offered by the gentleman from Somer-
set (Mr. Jones)—first offered by the gentle-
man from Calvert (Mr. Briscoe) and then
withdrawn—or they must strike out entirely
the 44th article of their own report. The
revolutionary right is inserted here in terms
broad enough, it seems to me, for any practical
purpose, in this 5th article, which provides :
" That all persons invested with the legis-
lative or executive powers of government,
are the trustees of the public, and as such,
accountable for their conduct; wherefore
whenever the ends of government are per
verted, and public liberty manifestly endan
gered, and all other means of redress are
ineffectual, the people may and of right ought
to reform the old or establish a new gov
ernment." |
There I rest the right of revolution; and
I would say that unless the people of the
State' go under the 6th article of this bill of
rights, when the government becomes so
oppressive that public liberty is manifestly
endangered, they have no revolutionary right
whatever. If they wish to change their form
of government in any other manner, in peace
fell times, when there is no oppression, or
danger to public liberty, and the majority of
the people think they can make a better Con-
stitution, which will work more to the ad-
vantage of the whole people of the State, and
some peaceful mode is pointed out by which
the change may be made, then I say let the
mode prescribed in the 44th article of the
bill of rights—and as the Committee on
Amendments to the Constitution ought and
probably will provide—let that be the mode
and that alone, of amending and altering
the Constitution; the mode prescribed by
ilself.
My view, therefore, is that we should strike
out altogether the last clause of this first ar-
ticle, and let the first clause remain; and then
let the 44th article (provide that the people
may change their Constitution in the manner
therein prescribed and directed. These are
the views which I entertain upon this subject.
I hope, however, if the article is to be adopted
as reported, it will be adopted with the
amendment submitted by the gentleman from
Somerset, (Mr. Jones,) or some other amend-
ment to the same effect.
On motion of Mr. DANIEL,
The Convention then adjourned.
EIGHTEENTH DAY.
TUESDAY, May 24th, 1864.
The Convention met at 12 M.
Prayer by the Rev, Mr. McNamar.
Present at the call of the roll the following
members:
Messrs. Goldsborough, President; Abbott,
Annan, Audoun, Baker, Belt, Berry of Prince
George's, Billingsley, Blackiston, Bond, Bris-
coe, Brown, Carter, Chambers, Clarke, Craw-
ford, Cunningham, Cushing, Dale, Daniel,
Davis of Charles, Davis of Washington, Del-
linger, Dennis, Earle, Ecker, Edelen, Gallo-
way, Greene, Harwood, Hatch, Hebb, Hen-
kle, Hodson, Hoffman. Hollyday, Hopkins,
Hopper, Horsey, Johnson, Jones.) of Cecil,
Jones of Somerset, Keefer, Kennard, King,
Lansdale, Larsh, Mace, Marbury, Markey,
McComas, Mitchell, Miller, Morgan, Mulli-
kin, Murray, Negley, Nyman, Parker, Par-
ran. Peter, Pugh, Purnell, Robinette, Rus-
sell, Sands, Schley, Scott, Smith of Carroll
Smith of Dorchester, Smith of Worcester
Sneary, Stirling, Stockbridge, Swope, Sykes
Thomas, Thruston, Todd. Valliant, Wickard
Wilmer, Wooden—83.
The journal of yesterday was read and
approved. |
