not thought proper to introduce an illustra-
tion in terms very offensive, without the
least shadow of fact upon which to base it.
The gentleman must be aware that the terms
of an illustration should always be consistent
with the character and deportment of gentle-
men, and not offensive. After noticing my
illustration of the language of this oath
asking if it would exclude me from voting,
and slating the peculiar facts of my case, the
gentleman replied by saying, that if I had
furnished money, if I had advised my grand-
son to unite with the Southern army, and all
that sort of thing, producing a case very
contrary to any shadow of foundation in
truth, then I was to beexcluded. All I have
to say is that no gentleman has a right to
put such a supposititious case involving facts
offensive to the moral conduct of an individ-
ual. It is a liberty which no gentleman has
a right to take; and of which I only rose
upon the present occasion to say that it was
without the slightest foundation in point of
fact I do not mean to argue this question,
I have said what I thought about it.
We have heard from the gentleman from
Baltimore city last up (Mr. Stirling) some
authority upon another subject. These con-
ventions of other States are held, as ours is
by virtue of acts of assembly. They are
held by virtue of provisions of which I know
nothing, and the effect of which I cannot
argue. It is the opinion of a large majority
here, it is intimated but I hope it is not so,
that the legislature in passing the convention
bill and the people in confirming it, imposed
obligations to the full extent of its pro-
visions. If that be the doctrine—it is not
mine; I only argued it last evening as obli-
gatory upon those who bad advanced it here—
we must first know what the acts of assembly
of Virginia and other States authorized to
be done. If the Virginia legislature in pro-
viding for the action of the convention au-
thorized them to extend the right of voting—
a very probable fact, which I have not bad
an opportunity of investigating—if that was
done, there is no parallel about it; because
our legislature have expressly said that before
this constitution shall have effect it shall be
submitted to the people; whereas, after tak-
ing an oath to support the present constitu-
tion, and after the people have indorsed the
declaration of the legislature that this is not
the constitution and does not supersede the
other until it is submilted, we are here mak-
ing it obligatory as part of the organic law of
the State.
That is the difficulty, and I do not see how
the gentlemen can possibly escape it. They
say the law is obligatory; that the people
have imposed obligations upon us through
that law. The law says that the constitution
shall not go into force until it shall be sub-
mitted to and passed upon and approved by
the people. If so, it is, as I remarked, a |
dead letter until then. If it be a dead letter
until then, how can you give it vitality in
these two most important particulars, one of
which lessens the number of those who con-
stitutionally now have the right of voting,
and the other of which gives authority to
vote to those who never bad it before? This
is not the constitution before it is confirmed.
According to your own account you have
taken a solemn oath to regard the existing
constitution until this has superseded it, and
it cannot supersede it until it is submitted.
I have heard no answer to this argument.
With regard to the argument made last
night by the gentleman from Baltimore
county (Mr. Ridgely) as to the proper inter-
pretation of the act of assembly which called
us together, the gentleman certainly made
the very best of his case. Bat as shown by
my friend from Anne Arundel (Mr. Miller) it
was only a specious case made by arguing a
part of the law. The law is that the quali-
fied voters, the persons entitled to vote, shall
vote at the time, those persons entitled to
vote shall vote at the place, those persons en-
titled to vote shall vote under the regulations
which this body may adopt. Will any phi-
lologist, any lawyer, any logician, stand up
here and say that to regulate a thing is to put
it aside, create it anew, and change it alto-
gether? That is not regulation. To regu-
late a thing is to control a certain particular
object. That particular object must remain
to be controlled, to be managed, to be ar-
ranged, or it is not regulated at all. It does
not propose to decide who are the voters,
The constitution decides who have the right
to vote. Those people are to vote; and the
convention are to regulate other matters with
regard lo those people. I do not object to
that. I do not deny your power to do that.
That is my view of the case; and I do not
see bow the argument can be avoided. 1
have not heard any attempt to refute it. If
the argument of the gentleman from Balti-
more county could have been sustained, and
if this could have been brought within the
power of this body by the convention bill,
those who take that theory would have been
justified. Will any man on the face of the
earth stand up here and say that the authority
to appoint time and place and regulate the
manner of voting, is authority to make a rule
to decide who are the constituency to vote?
1 will only say that I will not believe that
there is a man in this house unprejudiced and
unaffected by party sympathy, undisturbed
by the peculiar condition of our affairs, who
would take that view of the question. 1
cannot believe that there is a man who in a
calm moment would entertain a doubt upon
the subject. Certainly I do not.
Mr. DELLINGER moved that the convention
take a recess.
Mr. RIDGELY asked and obtained leave of
absence for to-morrow morning. |
