Maryland. I knew that in Virginia they had
enlarged the vote, and had admitted the vote
so enlarged.
Mr STIRLING. The gentleman makes a
qualification which helps my argument; but
I did not so understand him.
Mr. DAVIS, of Charles. I merely wish to
understand the gentleman's argument. Does
he mean to say that when the question is
submitted to the people with regard to the
calling of a convention, instead of submitting
the constitution which is formed to the people
for their action, they can make it valid by
their own act?
Mr. STIRLING. No, sir. The power must
come from the people, and if there is an un-
derstanding that it is lo be submitted to the
people, of course it must be submitted to
the people. What I deny is that it must be
submitted to the same identical constituency
which elected it. The gentleman baa alluded
to Virginia. I will read what the constitu-
tion of Virginia says on this subject:
''And such officers"—alluding to the of-
ficers who are to open the polls—"keeping
said polls open for the space of three days,
shall then and there receive, and record in
said poll-book, the votes for and against this
constitution and schedule, of all persons
qualified, under the existing or amended con-
stitution, to exercise the right of suffrage."
The convention of Virginia recognizing the
fact that they were bound to submit that con-
stitution to the people, allowed the vote at
that election of men who, under the existing
constitution of Virginia, were not allowed to
vote, and to whom the provisions of the
amended constitution were about to extend
the right of suffrage.
Now tarn to the constitution of Tennessee.
That is still stronger. The ordinance pro-
vides, "that no person shall be deemed a
qualified voter in said election except such as
are included within the provisions of the
first section of the fourth article of this
amended constitution,"
Where are we lo get constitutional law, if
we do not get it from the practice of the
States? The provisions of the constitution
of Texas are almost identical, so far as I can
see, with these. And they are the only pro-
visions mentioned in this book to which I
am referring.
We all know that there is a process to be
gone through. The legislature provides for
holding the convention; but the convention
derives its power from the people to amend
the constitution. Every matter which is
necessary to put the constitution into force
prior to its adoption, everything which is
necessary to regulate the election under
which it is to be adopted, is immediately in
the power of the convention. So far has the
doctrine gone in this country, that it has
been claimed time and again that when the
people desired a constitutional convention, |
they had a right to elect a constitutional
convention, and that the convention could
declare the constitution in force without sub-
mitting it to the people; and this was sus-
tained by the authorities of the United States
in regard to the State of Kansas,
1 say that we are not bound under the laws
of this State, under the doctrines of Ameri-
can constitutions, or under the peculiarity of
this reforming process where a convention
has at least quasi sovereignty, to submit (he
constitution to the same constituency of the
country. I admit that this is a high moral
power which ought to be exercised with great
caution and a high sense of responsibility.
But there is no sense in which this conven-
tion is absolutely bound, as a matter of law,
to submit the constitution to tire identical
people who voted upon the convention.
Suppose that they were. What does this
constitution undertake to do? It disqualifies
nobody from voting except upon the ground
that they have put themselves under such
circumstances in point of fact as to disqualify
them from the exercise of what the law gives
them. And I say that even if we were bound
to submit it to the same constituency, if we
bad no right to prescribe other qualifications,
we have a right under the state of things
now existing, to impose such a condition as
to make those offering to vote prove that in
fact they are entitled to cast their votes.
The gentleman from Calvert (Mr. Briscoe,)
a little while ago, made some reference to the
practice in this State, and said, I believe, that
at the time a certain statute was adopted,
there was no organic law in this State. That
is not the fact. The people of this State in
the year 1778 were acting under the consti-
tution of 1776. That constitution goes on to
declare that every freeman that possessed a
certain amount of real estate or personal pro-
perty should be entitled to vote for members
of the house of delegates. Yet, that constitu-.
tion was passed during a state of civil war.
It was passed at a time when a portion of the
people described under that section, and
holding the requisite amount of property,
did not acknowledge the government that
had been set up, but acknowledged their al-
legiance elsewhere and sympathized with the
public enemy. What did the legislature do?
Not at constitutional convention called to
prepare a constitution in 1776, but the gen-
eral assembly in 1778. acting under the con-
stitution of 1776? They expressly say that
every person up to a certain age shall take
an oath of allegiance, and that any person
who refuses or neglects to take that oath of
allegiance shall never vote at any election
thereafter to be held ill this State. The con-
stitution of 1776 provide':
" The house of delegates shall be chosen in
the following manner. All freemen, residents
of this State, above twenty-one years of age,
having a freehold of fifty acres of land in the |
