all? It was, doubtless, avery just require-
ment, but our first constitution was, I think,
never ratified by a vote of the people, and, if
I mistake not, other State constitutions,
since adopted, have been made to operate
immediately and without such ratification.
From this it would seem to follow that if it
was not essentially necessary to submit the
constitution to the ultimate vote of the peo-
ple in order to give it vitality, the legislature
in so directing it to be submitted, was not so
manifestly exceeding its authority in qualify-
ing the manner of voting upon it or empow-
ering :be convention to do so.
But apart from any authority which the
general assembly has or might have delegated
to the convention on the subject, we can all
remember that the powers claimed for the
people in the institution of their organic law,
and for a convention duly elected by them
for such an purpose, have been of such a char-
acter as to permit, in previous instances, of
the apparent disregard of existing constitu-
tional requirements. The constitution of
1776, for instance, declared in one of its arti-
cles, " that this form of government and
declaration of rights, and no part thereof,
shall be altered, changed or abolished, unless
& bill so to alter, change or abolish the same
shall pass the general assembly, and be pub-
lished at least three months before a new elec-
tion, and shall be confirmed by the general
assembly after a new election of delegates,
in the first session after such new election."
Yet the constitution of 1851, under which we
at present live, was not ordained in the man-
ner thus limited and prescribed, but was the
work of a convention, and its validity was
chiefly maintained upon the ground of the
paramount authority of the people on the
subject, and the plenary powers possessed by
such a convention. I would not be under-
stood as concurring in all these conclusions,
but I advert to such cases to show that the
proceedings of this convention of which you
complain, may not be so unquestionably un-
constitutional as to warrant upon that ground,
as you suppose, the executive action you in-
voke. I think it would have been wiser for
the convention to have avoided the exercise
of all doubtful powers, but having, after due
deliberation and discussion, adopted the
changes in question, had they, in so doing,
as clearly exceeded their authority, in my
opinion, as they have in yours, I should still
consider myself as obnoxious to the same ob-
jection, were I to interfere in the manner you
request, for the purpose of nullifying their
action. This convention was elected by a
majority of the voters of the State, and
charged with the most important duty that
they could delegate to representatives—the
formation of a new constitution. These dele-
gates have discharged that duty, and in the
constitution which they have adopted, they
have by a very decided majority, introduced |
the provisions to which you object; for the
executive of the State to interpose in such a
case, instruct the officers of the State to dis-
regard these provisions, and to disregard
them himself upon the ground that he considers
them unconstitutional, would not only
be a precedent fraught with the most dangerous
consequences, but would be the assump-
tion of a judicial function which be is not at
liberty to exercise, and a denial of the ordi-
nary respect due to the proceedings of a de-
liberative body, and to the constituency they
represent. Nor can I agree with you that
" there is no authority to redress the wrong
after it is perpetrated, "and that "there is
no tribunal to which the people can appeal
but to you" (me). If any wrong has been
perpetrated by the convention, or any one
should suffer in person or property by its
wrongful action, surely the judicial tribunals
of the State are the proper ones to redress the
injury, and possess the power to do so.
You refer' to '• these times of exciting pas-
sion and prejudice," and to the period when
"an enlightened, chastened and true public
?sentiment most succeed the agitation and in-
justice of these days." No one, I assure you,
regrets such a state of things more than I do,
or would go farther to promote such a chas-
tened public sentiment, bull cannot but think
that were I to interfere in the manner you
propose, and undertake to annul the action
of such a convention, the agitation and excite-
ment you so justly deprecate would fearfully
exceeded any we have yet witnessed, and more
especially so as the most obvious and only
effect of such interference would be to allow
those to vote who could not conscientiously
swear that they had never given aid, countenance
or support to the rebellion, and to
deny that franchise to others who are daily
shedding their blood that the rehellion may
be subdued.
Regretting, as I sincerely do, that I have
not the support of your judgment in the
convictions I entertain of my duty in the
premises,
1 am very truly, yours, &c.,
[Signed] A. W. BRADFORD.
SECOND LETTER OF MR. VICKERS.
CHESTER-TOWN, September 27, 1864.
His Excellency A. W. Bradford, Governor of
Maryland:
My Dear Sir—Your favor of the 19th was
received last week. My business engagements
have prevented me from acknowledging its
receipt sooner. I regret very much that you
have come to the conclusion not lo interfere
in preventing the unconstitutional measures
of the convention from being imposed upon
the people of the State. it is unpleasant to
differ in opinion from you, especially on a
subject of so much importance, and when my |
