In every State of the Union, almost without
exception, legislative authority has indicated
and directed the call of sovereign Conven-
tions, It bars been contended by some gen-
tlemen that without resort to legislative sanc-
tion, indeed in violation of it, that it is
competent tor the people of this or any other
State, at any time they may choose, without
the intervention of legislative authority, to
assemble in primary assemblies and call a
Convention, and alter or reform their form of
government.
My whole object in offering this amendment
is that this idea should not be encouraged or
construed to carry the principle to that extent.
The framers of the present Constitution of the
State, in order to avoid all misconception
upon that point, incorporated this article as
proposed to be amended. I remember very
well that in the argument made by Mr. Web-
ster in the Rhode island case. he maintained
the necessity of this proceeding, and demon-
strated that no Constitution had ever been al-
tered in this country by means of a Conven-
tion gotten up by mass meetings.
That such was an authentic or legal mode
of ascertaining the public will was discarded
A difficulty had arisen in that case in this
way: The people of Rhode island had been
living under their old chartered government
of Charles 11, and the forms of their charter
did not provide any mode for calling a Con-
vention to reform or alter their government.
The people assembled in mass meetings, with-
out legislative direction, and called a Con-
vention. This case is familiar to the members
of the profession, and there arose a collision
between adherents of the old and friends of
a newly-established government. In order
to avoid all doubt as to our action in the fu-
ture in this State, I have offered this amend-
ment. I should have preferred that some
member of the committee should have moved
to incorporate this provision in the bill of
rights, but as they have not I make the mo
tion. I know very well that when the Leg-
islature of this State had under consideration
the call of this Convention, I took the ground
then that it was not competent to make the
call but by a strict adherence to the provis
ions of the Constitution designating the mode
of change, it was, however, contended that
notwithstanding any restrictions whatsoever
that it was at all times the inalienable right
to call a Convention, provided the majority
should think the public welfare and the gen
eral good required. I desire to avoid these
conclusions in the future, and at the same
time not depart from the article adopted by
tile framers of the present form of our organic
law.
In reply to Mr. Stockbridge—
Mr. BRISCOE. It occurs then to me that the
phraseology adopted in the bill of rights as it
now stands, is obnoxious to the same con
struction. If the gentleman undertakes to |
start out with laying down an abstract truth
as to this State and other governments, we
might go into an argument upon that. It
is held by some that it is impossible for a
sovereign power to limit itself. According
to the conception I have formed of the prin-
ciples of political government in this country,
I hold that it is competent for a sovereignty
to limit itself as to the mode it shall do cer-
tain acts or modify its form of government.
It may raise that question. I undertake to
say that the people do limit their govern-
ment, indeed they often limit their own pow-
ers, They secure themselves against sudden
changes by mere majorities. Holding that
theory, it is perfectly consistent that this ar-
ticle should remain in the bill of rights as it
now stands. When the people undertake to
act through their representatives under an
organized government, it is only competent
under that government to exercise such pow-
ers as are recognized in their Constitution,
and I want it clearly Bet forth that when
they shall have adopted this Constitution,
it shall be incompetent to go behind it
or above it except by resorting to forci-
ble and not peaceable revolution. I wish
to say to the generation that shall come
after us, and in all time to come, that if they
shall by any action of theirs modify this form
of government otherwise than berein de-
signated, it shall beheld to be illegal and are-
sort to the overthrow of the rules of well-
established government in this country. Such
is not the kind of revolution or change of
government ordinarily practiced heretofore
by the States of this Union. In that view, I
see no inconsistency in pressing this amend-
ment.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Mr. ABBOTT, of Baltimore city, rose to a
question of privilege, and said :
Mr. President, I ask the indulgence of this
Convention to hear me for a few moments in
reply to the, I think, uncalled-for attack made
upon me by the member from Prince George's
county, (Mr. Berry,) in his labored harangue
of Wednesday. I will say before I commence
that I do not intend any injury to any one
Although I may perhaps allude to particular
fates, I will say beforehand that it is not
intended for special or personal injury. He
attempted to be both witty and wise in regard
to everything except myself, and he asked me
not in language of his own, but in a quota
tion from Moore, I believe, to " Go to nature
and ask her what she made me for." I now
come back and tell him, sir, that I have con
suited her. She is my best friend—my mother
she has never deceived me; her rules, her pre
cepts and her laws, are all written out by be
great author, God. She told me, sir, in the
language of Pope—
" A wit's a feather, a chief a rod,
An honest man the noblest work of God.' |
