is any discrepancy of opinion among the
members of the opposition upon the com-
mittee. So far as relates to the Union mem-
bers, we agree with regard to. the details
of the report, and are prepared to submit it at
any moment. It is only out of respect to the
opposition that the report has been delayed.
Upon the adoption of the order requiring
lists of the committees to be posted in some
conspicuous position in the Hall or Rotunda,
I prepared a list of the Committee on Elec-
tions and had it placed there, appointing
certain days of the week when we were to
assemble in the committee room to discharge
our duties. The Union members of the com-
mittee have usually attended; but the mem-
bers of the committee in the opposition did
not with the same punctuality attend. Con-
sequently, out of respect to them, we delayed
final action until we could have all the mem-
bers of the committee present. I am not
aware to this day that there is any difference
of opinion with regard to what will be that
report.
The subjects which have been referred to
by the gentleman from Kent (Mr. Chambers)
were discussed on one or two occasions, and
the Constitution was referred to. I believe
these subjects, so far as they relate to the
qualification of members, were duly and
fairly discussed and understood by the Mem-
bers of the committee on both sides. The
delay in offering our report did not originate
in any disposition to avoid a report, but
merely out of respect to the opposition upon
the committee, to give them an opportunity
to satisfy themselves, that we might either
submit a unanimous report, or that they
might submit a minority report, if their judg-
ment should so incline.
Mr. RIDGELY. I should not say one wore
on this subject but for the remarks which
have fallen from my friend from Kent (Mr.
Chambers.) I have been for very many
years in the habit of deferring with very great
respect to his judicial learning. But I can-
not reach the same conclusion as to the theory
of the law under which this Convention was
organized, to which be has arrived. I be-
lieve very differently. I do not believe that
there are qualifications imposed by the act of
Assembly; nor do I believe it was any part
of the theory of the act of Assembly to im-
pose qualifications. I do not regard this
body as deriving any being whatever from
the Convention Bill. I do not regard the
Convention Bill as entering in the slightest
degree into the vitality of this organization.
According to my theory of our being, we
derive our existence directly from the people,
The instrumentalities by which the subject
was brought before the people have been well
put by my friend from Kent; but how the
Legislature bad authority to provide these
instrumentalities and had not the authority
to go further, it is difficult for me to under- |
stand. Where the Legislature derived the
authority to provide the ways and means to
attain the expression of the public sentiment
and to be there estopped, I have yet to learn.
The whole theory of our being is that life
has been inspired into this body by the popu-
lar vote; and upon a programme suggested
and submitted for the consideration of the
people by the General Assembly of the State.
They have suggested to the people the modus
operandi, and they have also suggested to the
people certain qualifications of membership;
and my friend from Anne Arundel (Mr. Mil-
ler) laid them before you yesterday in the
form of the order which be submitted to the
House; showing that there is at least a dif-
ference of opinion between him and the hon-
orable gentleman from Kent. He thinks that
the Legislature have imposed qualifications,
and that those qualifications have been in-
dorsed and vitalized by the vote of the people,
and that every gentleman who presents him-
self here must present himself under authority
conferred by the people, and qualifications
controlled by the people.
These are my views; and I have thought
that it would not be proper to permit the
sentiments uttered by the honorable gentle-
man from Kent, to pass sub silentio; but that
I should rise in my place and dissent from
those doctrines, and utter here my convictions
that the Committee on Elections owe it to an
imperative sense of public duty to report;
and to report upon the qualifications of mem-
bers, not as provided in the act of Assembly,
but as prescribed by the popular vote.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I am indebted to the gen-
tleman who last addressed the Convention,
for the compliment conveyed in his opening
remark. I wish I could say I could have
equal respect for the arguments which he has
advanced. Does it not manifestly appear—is
it not on the very surface of the thing, that
if the Legislature, commanded as they were
by this Constitution under which they were
assembled, to offer the people an opportunity
of calling a Convention, have the power which
he concedes to them, of mixing up with the
call, restraints, modifications, and various
provisions, it is in their power forever to
make that constitutional provision a perfect
farce? The question is put to the people:
Shall there be a Convention? Nothing else
was acted upon—a Convention or no Conven-
tion. Let the gentleman tell me, if he can,
upon his faith as a man of honor, that one
man in a thousand regarded the qualifica-
tions, the restraints of that bill, when he
gave his ballot for a Convention, or no Con-
vention. If they can say that a gentleman
who is not qualified to sit in one of the two
houses, shall not be a member, they have
authority, according to the argument of my
friend, to say anything else they please, lf they
choose to say that this Convention shall be
composed of individuals of any class, or if |
