vided by this constitution, to be held during
that year."
Mr. CHAMBERS. Against this I raise my
voice, as being more in violation of the obli-
gations due from this convention to the
people of Maryland than any act which 'has
been suggested in this body. I suppose that
if there is one proposition in regard to which
there will be no division of opinion among
gentlemen of this body, one fact which will
be universally conceded, it is that by those
who voted for the assemblage of this body,
whether for Or against a convention, there
was not one dissenting voice in regard to the
proposition that it should be a dead letter
until the people should act upon it. There
is not a man .that I have ever heard of in the
State, who participated in the election, that
has suggested, that, so far as I know, has
ever dreamed of having a constitution until
it was submitted to the people and sanc-
tioned by them. I say again, I do not sup-
pose there is upon this floor one individual
who, if candid and sincere, will deny that
it was the universal expectation that this
should be a dead letter until sanctioned by
the people.
Starting at that point, what do we wit-
ness? The old constitution is in force, per-
fectly in force, as much so as it was one hoar
after its adoption, until this new constitution
is adopted by the people. In inevitable
result, the old constitution, and all the
rights and privileges which are by it secured
to the citizens of the State, continue in full
force and effect until this new constitution is
sanctioned by the people.
In the face of this fact, this section pro-
poses to violate that constitution; to deprive
certain individuals of rights and privileges
which are secured under that constitution;
not only to take away the rights of those
who have heretofore exercised the first and
boasted privilege of freemen, the right to
vote; but it undertakes presently, in strict
conformity with the principle adopted in
this section, to introduce a perfectly new
class of voters unknown to that constitu-
tion. Is this possible? Is it possible that
gentlemen propose, by an instrument of no
force and effect until after a certain event,
by an instrument thus hereafter to have
validity infused into it, to operate such a
monstrous result as to destroy constitutional
prerogatives and privileges? Lotus for one
moment look, at this. Who sent us here?
Those who, under the constitution now ex
isting and in fall force, had the right to
vote. At least that is the theory of this
body. How far they participated in it, I am
not here bound now to determine. But
cone other except those, and all those who
choose to present themselves as candidates for
the. exercise of this privilege, were the con
stituency—the rightful constituency of this
body; none other. |
What is now proposed? That while that.
constitution is yet unrepealed, while it is yet
in force, you are to send this constitution,
not to that constituency whom we represent,
not to be acted upon by those who sent us
here, but by a different constituency alto-
gether, those who are supposed to be opposed
to it being restrained by further provisions
and restrictions, and those who are supposed
to be favorable to it being introduced into the
arena as voters, never before known to any
constitution which we have had. Is this the
mode of erecting constitutions, to shuffle off
the constituency which you have had, to de-
ny the privileges which have been exercised?
It is bad enough to allow the privilege to
others, to extend it; but when we present
ourselves here standing on the shoulders, and
acting on the authority of a class of individ-
uals, are we then to be told that in defiance
of their constitutional rights they shall not
vote unless they conform to additional re-
strictions which this constitution imposes ?
Let us suppose for one moment, and no
man has a right to say that such a supposi-
tion is at all impossible, that the people do
not choose to adopt this constitution. What
predicament are you in? It shall have then
resulted that you' have restrained persons
constitutionally entitled to vote, by an enact-
ment without a shadow of obligation. If
this constitution is not adopted by the peo-
ple, it has not a shadow of obligation; if hag
no more force or effect than anewspaper.
As yet this paper which is conditionally and
only conditionally to have any effect, is to
deprive every individual of his right to vote,
who besides the privilege secured by the con-
stitution, besides the restrictions imposed by
the constitution and existing law, shall not
further in addition subject himself to the re-
strictions imposed by this present instrument.
Is that a state of things which gentlemen can
admire? Is it a state of things they can hon-
estly desire? Is it a state of things it is sup-
posed they will submit to? Is it a state of
things becoming a government of freemen?
Is it a treatment which our constituency de-
serve at our hands, to say that this session of
the convention is the result of the voluntary
action of the people of the State? What
people? People who are voters under the
constitution of 1851. Why not then let these
people, this constituency, decide this question?
The idea of having apiebald con-
cern here, of having provisions intended to
throw out some voters and brIng in others,
i and to have effect while the other provisions
3 are silent, is an anomaly unknown to any
i history we have of our proceedings. Is it a
, constitution or is it not? If it be so, boldly
[) go in the face of the people and say so. lf it
r be not, why attempt to impose these restric-
- tions and fasten its obligations, when it is
s not a constitution? If it be not, what is it?
What is the appellation, what is the title of |
