disparity between the votes cast then, and
without any reason whatever for it, and the
actual vote of the State, than there is now. I
say we are here, and fairly called here, by a
larger vote than ever before was given for the
same purpose in the State of Maryland.
And I have heard the talk about "emanci-
pation vagaries," &c. Now I did not intend
to touch that matter to-day; and if I ever
address this Convention again, I expect it will
be but once more, and on that very subject.
I do not intend to touch it to-day. But
gentlemen better remember that what they
call "vagaries," are the solemn convictions
of at least 31,000, some hundred men, who
went to the polls last month and voted for
the call of this Convention Those are rather
weighty vagaries, and gentlemen better give
them their just consideration. They are no
vagaries, but solemn convictions, which have
been forced upon the minds and hearts of the
people by the deplorable events of the last
few sorrowful and bloody years.
I cannot agree with the gentleman from
Prince George's, (Mr. Berry) that the call
for the Convention of 1850 approximated
nearer to the provisions of the pre-existing
Constitution than the one for this Convention
did.
Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's. I made no
such statement, I said that there was no pro-
hibition in the old Constitution against the
call of a sovereign Convention. It only
pointed out the mode in which the General
Assembly could change the Constitution.
Mr. SANDS I think the gentleman is still
in error.
Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's. Then cor-
rect that error.
Mr. SANDS. I will do so. On page 27 of
this document you will find the following:
"The manner in which our former Constitution
was changed was, as we all remem-
ber, apparently in decided conflict with the
provision it contained for its own amend-
ment."
Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's. From what
does the gentleman read?
Mr, SANDS. From Gov. Bradford's mes-
sage.
Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's. I was
speaking of the old Constitution.
Mr. SANDS. And I am speaking and read-
ing of the old Constitution
"The manner in which our former Consti-
tution was changed, was as well remember,
apparently in decided conflict with the pro-
vision it contained for its own amendment:
certainly far more so than is presented by the
objection last noticed."
That is the objection against which I argued
yesterday.
Mr BERRY, of Prince George's. Is that
'the gentleman's argument, or Gov. Brad-
ford's?
Mr. SANDS. It is Gov. Bradford's message |
to the Legislature, and is in consonance with
the terms of the pre -existing Constitution and
the facts connected with the last Convention.
Now this is what will settle that point:
"It was by that Constitution expressly
declared, that it should only be changed or
abolished by the acts of two successive Leg-
islatures in a manner particularly specified,
yet, (adds the Governor, and which is the
fact) it was entirely abrogated by the action
of a Convention."
Now the truth of the matter is just this, as
gentlemen well know; the Constitution ex-
isting anterior to 1850 declared that it was
amendable only in a specific way, that spe-
cific way and method being by the acts of
two successive Legislatures. Now who pre-
tends that the Convention of 1850 assembled
in conformity with the provisions of the then
existing Constitution?
Mr. BELT. Will my friend from Howard
(Mr. Sands) allow me to make a single sug-
gestion ?
Mr. SANDS. Certainly.
Mr. BELT. It is that possibly the Governor
in his message, and the gentleman in his ar-
gument, entirely overlook the 42d section of
the old Declaration of Rights. It is true,
that the clause in the Constitution prescribes
the acts of two successive Legislatures as the
manner in which the Constitution shall be
changed. But the 42d article of the Decla-
ration of Rights settles the question. It is :
"That this Declaration of Rights, or the
form of government lo be established by this
Convention, or any part of either of them,
ought not to be altered, changed or abolished,
by the Legislature of this State, but in such
manner as tills Convention shall prescribe
and direct."
But that makes no reference whatever to
the original power of the Legislature to call
a Convention.
Mr. SANDS. There is a radical difference
between the old bill of rights and the old
Constitution. The Constitution itself con-
tained exactly the provision which the Gov-
ernor stated. The 59th article says :
"That this form of government) and the
Declaration of Rights, and no part thereof,
shall be altered, changed or abolished, unless
a bill so to alter, change or abolish the same,
shall pass the General Assembly and he pub-
lished at least three months before a new elec-
tion) and shall be confirmed by the General
Assembly after a new election of delegates, in
the first session after such new election; pro-
vided that nothing in this form of govern-
ment which relates to the Eastern Shore par-
ticularly," fee.
That is unimportant. I do not mean that
the Eastern Shore is unimportant, for I halve
very great respect for that section of country ;
but the remainder of the article is unimportant.
There stood the Constitution which was |
