by inserting after the word "liberty" the
words "of speech and."
Upon this question Mr. CLARKE called the
yeas and nays, which were ordered.
The question being then taken, by yeas and
nays, upon the amendment submitted by Mr.
Jones, of Somerset, it resulted—yeas 28, nays
28—as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Bond, Brown, Clarke, Dail,
Duvall, Farrow, Harwood, Henkle, Hodson,
Horsey, Jones of Somerset, Kennard, Lans-
dale, Mitchell, Miller, Morgan, Mullikin,
Negley, Noble, Parker, Robinette, Scott,
Smith of Carroll, Thomas, Todd, Valliant,
Wickard, Wooden—28.
Nays.—Messrs. Abbott, Baker, Barron,
Cunningham, Cushing, Daniel, Davis of
Washington, Earle, Ecker, Galloway, Greene,
Hatch, Hebb, Hopkins, Hopper, Jones of Ce-
cil, Keefer, King, Larsh, Murray, Ridgely,
Russell, Schlosser, Smith of Worcester, Sneary,
Stirling, Swope, Sykes—28.
Pending the call of the yeas and nays, the
following explanations were made by mem-
bers, as their names were called :
Mr. KENNARD. As to the object of this
amendment, I am net prepared to say. But
I will say that in the past history of the State
of Maryland, its citizens have not had liberty
of speech in regard to certain interests of this
State. As I am in favor of liberty of speech,
I hope that in the future our citizens may
have it, and therefore I vote "aye."
Mr. TODD, I wish to say in explanation of
my vote, that I shall vote for this amend-
ment with the same understanding that I
would vote for the article as reported, by the
committee; with the understanding that the
declaration of this privilege does not imply
the right of abusing that privilege.
The amendment was accordingly rejected.
Mr. ABBOTT. I move to amend this article
by adding—"except when used for treasona-
ble purposes, " And I would like to have
the ayes and nays on this question.
Mr STIRLING. This article is intended
merely to assert a general principle. There
are ways in which a paper can be stopped
from making treasonable utterances. But if
this broad exceptions is made to the rule,
then the question is—who is to decide what
are treasonable purposes? who is to have the
right to decide that question? I do not
think this amendment is necessary for the
purpose of defining either the rights or the
duties of the people, I prefer to let this arti-
cle stand as it has always stood, and I am
perfectly willing to take the consequences of
it.
Mr. ABBOTT. I have the privilege of differ-
ing with the views of the gentleman; and I
still insist upon the yeas and nays upon my
amendment. If you. do not say that the lib-
erty of the press shall be inviolably preserved
except for treasonable purposes, then I claim
that you assert that treasonable utterances |
are a part of the liberty of the press, and yon
cannot take it away.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was then taken, by yeas and
nays, upon the amendment of Mr. Abbott, and
resulted—yeas 10, nays 46—as follows :
Yeas—Messrs, Abbott, Baker, Barron, Da-
vis of Washington, Hatch, Jones of Cecil,
King, Larsh, Negley, Sneary—10.
Nays—Messrs. Bond, Brown, Clarke, Cun-
ningham, Cushing, Dail, Daniel, Duvall,
Earle, Ecker, Farrow, Galloway, Greene,
Harwood, Hebb, Henkle, Hodson, Hopkins,
Hopper, Horsey, Jones of Somerset, Keefer,
Kennard, Lansdale, Mitchell, Miller, Morgan,
Mullikin, Murray, Noble, Parker, Ridgely,
Robinette, Russell, Schlosser, Scott, Smith
of Carroll, Smith of Worcester, Stirling,
Swope, Sykes, Thomas, Todd, Valliant,
Wickard, Wooden—46.
Mr. THOMAS said, when his name was
called: In explanation of my vote, I desire
to say that I am at all times opposed to
treason in any shape or form, whether it
comes from the pen or from the tongue;
whether it be written or spoken. But I am
opposed to this amendment for the reason as-
signed by my colleague, (Mr. Stirling.) I
therefore vote "no."
The amendment was accordingly rejected.
No further amendment was offered to this
article.
Articles 40, 41, 42 and 43 were then read,
no amendment being proposed.
AMENDING THIS CONSTITUTION.
Article 44 was then read as follows:
"That this Constitution shall not be al-
tered, changed or abolished, except in the
manner therein prescribed and directed."
Mr. TODD. I move to strike out this 44th
article, for the reason that the Committee on
Future Amendments to the Constitution have
reported provisions for amending, altering or
changing the Constitution, And if the re-
port of that committee be adopted by this
Convention as a part of the Constitution, it
will be as binding upon the people of the
State as any enactment which may be incor-
porated in the Declaration of Rights.
Mr. CLARKE Before the vote is taken
upon striking out this article, I desire to
move to amend it by striking out all after
the word "that," and inserting—"The Leg-
islature shall pass no law providing for an
alteration, change or abolishment of this
Constitution, except in the manner therein
prescribed and directed."
The old bill of rights read as follows:
''That all government of right originates
from the people, is founded in compact only,
and instituted solely for the good of the
whole; and they have at all times, accord-
ing to the modes prescribed in this Constitu-
tion, the unalienable right to alter, reform or
abolish their form of government, in such
manner as they may deem expedient," |
