the General Assembly shall, at their next
session, provide by law for calling the same.
The Convention shall consist of as many
members as both Houses of the General As-
sembly, who shall be chosen in the same
manner, and shall meet within three months
after their election for the purpose afore-
said."
And section third provides:
" At the general election to be held in the
year 1882, and in each twentieth year there-
after, the question—'shall there? be a Con-
vention to revise, alter or amend the Consti-
tution ?'—shall be submitted to the electors
of the State, and in case a majority of all the
delegates voting at such election shall decide
in favor of a Convention, the General Assem-
bly at its next session, shall provide by law
for the election of delegates, and the assem-
bling of such Convention, as is provided in
the preceding section; but no amendment of
this Constitution, agreed upon by any Con-
vention assembled in pursuance of this arti-
cle, shall take effect until the same shall have
been submitted to the electors of the State,
and adopted by a majority of those voting
thereon."
That last section provides that the ques-
tion of calling a Convention shall be sub-
mitted to the people in 1882, and not until
then. Now, admitting, as many thought
who voted for the bill last winter, that the
Legislature did not carry out the exact pro-
visions of the Constitution; still the people
ratified their action. Now suppose that five
years hence, there should be some urgent ne-
cessity for a new Constitution; that, as was
said here last winter, the people cannot wait
until fall to vote upon the question, but must
do it at once; there is a clamor which must
be obeyed; but you cannot get sufficient
members under this second section to vote
for the bill; and a majority of the Legisla-
ture undertake to pass a law submitting the
question, two months after its adjournment,
to the people, whether they will have a Con-
vention or not; and the people vote in favor
of a Convention. Now that is the very case I
want to reach with my amendment. I desire
that this Convention shall say to the Legis-
lature: "The article in reference to amend-
ments of the Constitution provides how this
Constitution shall be amended; and you shall
only pursue the mode prescribed in the Con-
stitution, and not do as yon have always
heretofore done, call a Convention just as
you think proper, independent of constitu-
tional provisions." We do not attempt to
reach the power of the people at all. All we
do is this: when we come to swear in the
Legislature we make them swear to support
the Constitution, and this provision which
Bays to them: "You legislators, you mem-
bers of the Legislature, shall not undertake
to provide for the assembling of a Conven-
tion, or in any manner alter the Constitution, |
except as the power is given yon under this
Constitution."
My own idea is that the Legislature should
be unrestricted. I believe we should have
better laws, and a more stable Constitution,
and less demagoguism in the State, if the
people of the State knew that whenever they
desired to vote to have a Convention to re-
model their organic law they could do so.
All the agitation preceding the last reform
Convention, and preceding the call of the
present Convention, was addressed rather to
the restriction upon the exercise of the popu-
lar right; was rather calling upon the people
to assert their rights, than to any necessity
for the Convention. Therefore when yon do
reach the provision in relation to future
amendments, I hope you will give the Legislature
the unrestricted power at any time of
submitting the question of a Convention to
the vote of the people. I want the people to
have the right and the opportunity at any
time they choose to remodel their organic
law.
Mr. TODD. I would like to ask the gentle-
man from Prince George's (Mr. Clarke) a
question. Is an article in the body of the
Constitution any less binding upon the Legis-
lature than an article in the bill of rights ?
It seems to me that if the Legislature are dis-
posed to override a provision in the body of
the Constitution, the same disposition will
incline them to disregard a provision in the
hill of rights. Hence I see no necessity for
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Prince George's, (Mr. Clarke); I see no
good that can result from it, for it will not
accomplish the object he has in view.
Mr. CLARKE. It was announced upon this
floor last winter that although the Constitu-
tion restricted the power of the Legislature
in this respect, yet they would submit the
question to the vote of the people, and if the
people adopted the call for a Convention,
that would purge the Legislature from the
violation of their oaths.
Mr. STIRLING. Who said that?
Mr. CLARKE. I beard the doctrine asserted
here,—I do not now remember by whom,—
and some member introduced an order, that
any member who asserted that doctrine ought
to be expelled. The doctrine has been very
popular heretofore, that although the Legis-
lature is tied up by this constitutional re-
striction upon this subject, yet if you submit
it to the vote of the people, and they vote for
it, that vote has a sort of retroactive effect,
it becomes the act of the people from the be-
ginning, and the Legislature is relieved from
this obligation and restriction. Now I wish
to get rid of all that, and bring home to the
members of the Legislature that they shall,
in accordance with their oaths, pursue the
mode and manner prescribed in the Constitu-
tion. What manner shall be prescribed;
how the Legislature shall be tied up; or |
