the convention last night during the debate on
this first section. I must admit that I was not
only surprised but disappointed when I first
learned that such a proposition had been entertained
in this convention. The question arises,
under what law are the people in the State of
Maryland now living, and under what consti-
tution are they living? Can any part of the
constitution which we now propose to adopt,
in any wise or in any manner affect the peo-
ple in this State until .it is declared by the
people of the State to be the constitution. If
one part of this constitution can be made to
affect the people of the State of Maryland be-
fore it is submitted to them and before it
receives a majority of the qualified voters of
the State, why not at once declare it as the
constitution of the State? If you can make
one section of this constitution take effect
upon the people of this State before you sub-
mit it to them, with equal propriety you can
declare the whole at once the constitution
and let it have all the force that you give to
one part of it. What is the constitution
under which we now live? Not the one we
propose to adopt, but the constitution framed
in 1850. It is the qualified voters of the
State who now have the right to vote. Does
any proposition or any clause passed by the
legislature affect the old constitution? Will
gentlemen in this house pretend to say that
the last legislature could pass a law in direct
contravention to the old constitution? Mr.
President, I am astonished. What are con-
stitutions made for? What are they? The
constitution embodies the organic law of the
State. The constitution as it now exists pre-
scribes what shall be the qualifications of the
voters of the State of Maryland. Even sup-
pose that the last legislature had said in terms
direct and explicit, that every man in the
State of Maryland should be required to take
this oath, have the legislature the power to
destroy the constitution as it exists? Have
they the power to destroy the fundamental
law of the land ?
I have been informed that men argue that
they have a right to insert this test oath, be-
cause that is in the law under which the con-
vention itself is called. Is there any court
in the State of Maryland that would entertain
a view of this kind? Suppose the legislature
passes any unconstitutional law; bow will
courts treat it? I say that if the last legisla-
ture had said in terms as explicit and plain
as they could have expressed it, that no man
in the State should vote without taking this
oath, no court would say that that law was
constitutional. I assure gentlemen here that
my people will stand by that constitution
until it is set aside. The day is fast waning
in the horizon when the rights of freemen can
be trampled in the dust. The organic law of
our land prescribes what shall be the qualifi-
cations of voters of this State; and I assure
gentlemen that if I be the only man in my |
county, I will dare to approach the polls, and
1 will dare to say to those judges', here is my
ballot under the law of my Slat", under the
constitution as it now exists. I will dare
further. If they refuse that vote I will prose-
cute them to lire utmost limit of the law; and
if there be no justice in the land outside of the
courts, I hope there to bring them to justice,
and I hope there to visit upon their heads
that punishment which the law has prescribed,
that punishment which they cannot escape
from under the law which exists, of which
this convention cannot alter one tittle nor
one iota until it is approved by the people.
And I believe that I am not the only free
man in Montgomery county that will dare to
adopt this course. I believe there are others
there, greater than lam, yet who cherish the
rights of freemen as dearly as I dec, "and they
will dare to stand in the same place and as-
sert our rights in the courts of the State as
they now exist.
How is the organic law of this State to be
changed? The law lays it down here that this
convention shall assemble, that it shall adopt
a new constitution, not a constitution to affect
the people of the State of Maryland now,
or that shall affect them in any time hereafter,
until it shall first be submitted to the people,
and until it shall receive the sanction of a
majority of the qualified voters of (lie State.
But before I dwell particularly upon that
point I will make another.
If we have a right to require this oath, we
have a right to require anything else. If this
convention can incorporate into the organic
law which they propose to the freemen of this
State, an oath which must now directly bear
upon the people of this State, why not at
once require every man to swear that he will
vote for this constitution, and say that unless
he shall take that oath he shall not be per-
mitted to vote at all? if they can do the one,
they can do the other. I unhesitatingly say
that any court of justice or any court of law
will sustain me in this view. Why not say that
no man, unless he is in favor of abolition,
shall vote upon the constitution? If you
propose to put anything of this kind into the
constitution, which is to have any effect upon
the people of this State, why not make it
plain sailing? Why not cut all the timbers
out of the road and make a highway for this
party which seems to go upon the principle
of rule or ruin? Why try to smoothe the
matter over? Why try to cover it up with a
little tinsel? Why try to give shape to that
which has no shape, to give power to that
which has no power, to give life to that
which is dead and without life?
If we are to usurp powers here, and act out
boldly and in defiance of the law and the
constitution of this State as it now is, do not
submit the matter to the people at all. Do
not let us have a mere form of mockery; a
form of godliness, I might say, while we deny |
