late stage of the session, except for the fact
that I regard the proposition now before this
body as more vital, more important, striking
a deeper and deadlier blow at the rights of
the people, than any proposition which has
yet been submitted to the action of this con-
vention.
This is not a mere question of the power of
this convention; because when I approach
that branch of the subject I think the power
of the convention can be easily determined ;
but it is a question which affects the powers
and the rights of the people. The people in
1851, on the theory that they were to assem-
ble in the first place through their representa-
tives to frame a constitution, and that the
people then acting upon the principles of the
social compact were to adopt the constitu-
tion, ratified the constitution under which we
now live. That constitution secures to them,
until they adopt another, all their rights,
rights of property, rights of person, rights of
speech, and the political franchise, the right
of voting. Until that is altered, that is the
watchword and the landmark of their rights ;
and there is no power, save the people's
power, which can alter, which can modify,
which can in any way affect the elective
franchise, and these other sacred rights.
Has this constitution been changed yet?
Is it changed before the people, by their
vote, determine to change it? Surely it is
not. This constitution, then, being the law,
it defines the rights of the people. I will not
read the provision, but it provides that every
free white male citizen, having resided twelve
months in the State, and being a citizen of
the United States, shall be entitled to vote.
It is said and argued by gentlemen on one
side of this house, that it is not the constitu-
tion of the State to which you are to look,
but you must look at the provisions of the
convention bill; and that if this convention
has this power under the provisions of the
convention bill, then they have the right to
prescribe this oath. I will not follow the
argument of the gentleman from Anne Arun-
del (Mr. Miller) last night, to show that the
provisions of this convention bill do not au-
thorize the convention to prescribe such an
oath.
The view I take of the power of the con-
vention is this: This convention was called
together to frame a new constitution or
form of government. Was any power given
them to adopt the organic law? Was any
power given them to put the organic law, or
any portion or provision of it, in operation?
Not at all. The people were to vote on the
question of the call of the convention to
frame a new constitution or form of govern-
ment by express writing or printing on the
same ballot with the names of delegates.
That was the sole power given, to frame the
constitution; and therefore there was no
power to adopt it. Hence, even if the sixth |
section requiring it to be submitted, had not
been in the bill, this convention would have
had no power to adopt it as the organic law
of the State without submitting it to the vote
of the people,
I contend therefore that the sole power of
this convention is to frame, and after framing
to submit it; and, further, I contend that the
people in voting for or against the conven-
tion did not pass upon any provision in this
convention bill; nor is the convention bill
further the law of this body than of the
people of the State. The convention has
already decided that question. We have
heard the gentleman from Baltimore city
(Mr. Stirling) announce upon this floor, in
regard to the first section of the bill, which
says that "the legal voters of this State shall,
by ballot, elect delegates to the said conven-
tion, whose qualifications shall be the same
as those now required for a seat in the house
of delegates," when State's attorneys and
other officers are excluded from the house of
delegates and occupy seats upon this floor,
and have been decided by the convention
to be entitled to these seats—the gentle-
man from Baltimore city announced as the
political view of his party upon this floor
that they did not regard the provisions of
this bill as controlling the power of this con-
vention.
Mr. STIRLING. No, sir; I did not say that.
The gentleman must have misunderstood me.
Mr. CLARKE. I understood the gentleman
to say that notwithstanding the provisions
of the first section these gentlemen had a
right to hold their seats here.
Mr. STIRLING. I said that even if the bill
bad made them ineligible, I would not then
vote to turn any of them out; and I ex-
pressly waived that question there.
Mr. CLARKE. That is my argument, that
by their action the gentlemen have practically
assumed that position.
Mr. STIRLING. But I distinctly took the
ground that those gentlemen were all per-
fectly qualified under the bill itself.
Mr. CLARKE. That being the sole power of
this convention, to frame a constitution and
to adopt nothing, I regard any provision
which may be in the convention bill as en-
tirely outside of the question; and we come
now directly to the question, what are the
rights of voters under the existing constitu-
tion of the State? That question is decided
by the provision relating to the elective fran-
chise. I hold therefore that this convention
has no power to limit, qualify, alter, or in
any shape to modify the provision which
determines the right of the people of the
State to vote upon the adoption of this con-
stitution.
And I do it irrespective of the form of this
oath. If the oath contained even the opposite
of what is placed in it, and called upon the
citizen to swear, " I have expressed my sympa- |
