which we cannot recognize otherwise than as
an infusion into Maryland politics not to be
recommended.
I am indebted to the Convention, I may
say it without affectation, for their patient
listening to the remarks which I have offered.
Mr. SANDS. Will our friend tell us who is
the Connecticut member to whom he referred ?
Mr. SCOTT. I suppose he means the gen-
tleman from Anne Arundel, (Mr. Miller )
The hour having arrived for closing the
debate, under the order adopted on the 14th
inst., the Chairman of the Committee on the
Declaration of Rights, proceeded under the
order as follows:
Mr. STIRLING, I shall endeavor in the re-
marks which I shall have the honor to submit
to the house upon this question, to confine
myself as closely as I can to the immediate
subject which is under the consideration of
the Convention. I am indeed somewhat
sorely tempted, by the fact that some portion
of the argument has been directly aimed at
the humble position which I occupy in this
body, to trespass beyond what I consider the
legitimate bounds of this debate, for the pur-
pose of replying to that portion of the argu
ment. The gentleman from Prince George's,
who opened this discussion, (Mr. Clarke,)
did me the honor to throw upon my head, I
will not say the vials of his wrath, but a re-
mark of not very appreciatory consideration,
to which I did not deem myself entitled; and
therefore, sir, after further reflection I did
not deem it necessary here, either to review
the proceedings of the State Convention of
Maryland which elected delegates to the Bal-
timore Convention to nominate candidates for
the Presidency and Vice-Presidency of the
United States, nor the peculiar views of the
gentleman who represents the Third Congres-
sional District of Maryland in the Congress of
the United States, upon the agitating topics
of the day. I shall leave those portions of
the gentleman's speech unanswered, to the
reason and judgment of those who shall read
it, and shall confine myself, so far as I can,
strictly to the legitimate discussion of the
particular subject that is before this body.
A good deal has been said with regard to
the action of the Committee on this article.
The gentleman from Prince George's, (Mr.
Clarke,) with the courtesy which always dis-
tinguishes him, not only notified but urged
me to take the floor, and seemed to con-
sider that I was not performing my duty,
in not opening the discussion upon this
subject. That line of remark has been
carried somewhat further by the honorable
gentleman who has just addressed the
Convention, in the assertion that this ar-
ticle was complete in all its form, when
it saw the light of the Committee room,
and they had nut the benefit of the views of
the members of the Committee who formed
the article, in regard to the propriety of its
34 |
adoption. I will explain that in a very few
words.
Mr. CHAMBERS, (interposing.) If the gen-
tleman will permit me, I will say what I in-
tended to say, that this article never saw the
light of the Committee room until it was
concocted, acted upon, and adopted by a mar
jority of the Committee out of session. The
facts as I understand them were these. For
some fortnight or so the Committee were not
called together, some of the members being
away. When called together, the first in-
formation was given us by the Chairman
that inasmuch as they were the majority,
and inasmuch as they had the responsibility
upon them, inasmuch as they knew that we
who were in the minority, the gentleman
from Prince George's, (Mr. Belt,) and myself,
would oppose this article, they had thought
themselves privileged to act together and
arrange and determine upon these proposi-
tions, which they then submitted to us. That
I understand to be the state of the case.
Mr. STIRLING. Substantially.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Of course I protest against
this as being utterly inconsistent with the
orders of the Convention, and usage in the
appointment of committees.
Mr. STIRLING. So far as the remarks of
the gentleman imply that the majority had
adopted that article in a meeting.; before the
Committee had a formal meeting, the gentle-
man is mistaken. But that they did inform-
ally consult together, not all the members of
the majority at any one time, with regard to
this proposition, and that it was brought be-
fore the Committee as embracing the views
of the majority, the gentleman is perfectly
correct. I am perfectly willing to say still
further, that it was introduced in Committee
not only with the knowledge upon the part
of lire majority of the Committee that it met
the judgment of the majority of the Commit-
tee, but with the knowledge upon the part of
the majority, of the Committee that it met the
judgment of the majority of this Convention.
if there is any other statement necessary to
be made in regard to that, I am perfectly
willing to make it.
I considered it entirely right and proper,
that with regard to these matters, upon
which the majority of this Convention came
here with their views expressed in the can-
vass before the people of the State, and in
regard to which they came here positively
instructed by the constituency which sent
them, they had a right to place their views
in their own form, and submit them to the
gentlemen who constiitute the minority of
this Convention. It was upon the theory,
that in regard to the subject matter of both
the proposition that is before us and that
contained in the 23d article, we had every
reason to believe they Would not meet the
support of the minority of the Committee,
that I conceived it would answer no good |
