they choose to put into the bill offensive
matter of any other kind, and if the people
are bound by it, what is the consequence?
They must either elect the Convention sub-
ject to this offensive matter, or they must go
without a Convention forever. The Legisla-
ture have nothing to do but to make the bill
too offensive to be adopted by the people as
a whole, and it will be defeated. Yet the
Constitution has entitled the people to a Con-
vention.
The gentleman has asked a question which
I take pleasure in answering, and, unless he
is very unreasonable, I think, to his entire
satisfaction. It is this: If the Convention
can name the time and the place, and bind
the people by that, why not name something
else?
Mr. BELT. I hope my friend will excuse
me for asking him a question in regard to
the restrictions imposed by the legislative
act calling the Convention. Suppose the
people of Kent bad elected twenty delegates
to this body, instead of the three they
actually sent, who would determine upon
their right to a seat here? Do you say the
act does not bind anybody?
Mr CHAMBERS. I was just arguing that
question, and I will meet the gentleman's
difficulty. The Constitution of 1850 has this
provision: The Legislature shall give the
people an opportunity to hold a Convention.
That is a plain case. That obligation the
Legislature are bound to comply with. How
is it to be done? My answer is by legis-
lation—ex necessitate —from the very necessity
of the case, that is a part of their constitu-
tional obligation. The necessity of the case
is, that the manner of getting it up, the
time of getting it up, and the time and place
of holding it shall be designated by the Leg-
islature. Cannot my friends perceive the
difference between getting up an organiza-
tion and controlling the government of that
organization after it is met and completed?
There is no more difference between light and
darkness than there is between getting up a
Convention and restricting the Convention.
Mr. RIDGELY, la not the qualification of
members of the body a part of its organiza-
tion ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Not at all. The Legis-
lature may undertake to say that Prince
George's county shall have twenty members
which my friend puts to me a question about
and that Baltimore city shall have five members
Is not that a necessary consequence of
your arguments? Must the people take that
or be denied what the Constitution has en-
titled them to? My doctrine is, that the
same doctrine applies to the Constitution of
the State that applies to the Constitution of
the United States. The United States have
no authority except they Can put their finger
on the power. What is the extent of that
power? Everything implied in its language |
and terms, and everything necessary for the
exercise of the powers designated in the terms
and words of the power. So I say here,
when the Constitution of the State directs
the Legislature to call a Convention, if the
people wish it, it confers upon them the ne-
cessary power, without which that could not
be performed which is enjoined upon them.
It conveys the necessary power to appoint
time, manner, place of election, time and
place of assemblage, &c. That being done,
they may just as well undertake to control
the winds that blow, as to control the action
or power, either of the people in selecting, or
of this Convention in acting. I say, there-
fore, as a short answer to my friend's ques-
tion, why they can do this and cannot do the
other, is that the Constitution empowers
them to do the one, and forbids them to do
the other.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President—
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. I suggest, as a question
of order, that this debate is irrelevant. It is
manifest that we shall have a very interesting
time when the report cornea in, but the
.question now is merely upon the adoption of
the order of the gentleman from Kent.
The PRESIDENT. The general custom is to
allow debate on such an order, upon the
general merits of the subject embraced in it;
but, as the gentleman insists upon restricting
the debate, the Chair must confine the debate
to the question of the adoption of the order.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I intended to say, in no-
ticing the remarks of my friend before me
(Mr. Ridgely,) that I could not understand
how, with his theory, he could sit here day
by day and see an open violation of what be
supposed to be the obligation of this body,
without exacting the report for which this
order calls. If he believes the bill to be ob-
ligatory, so far as it designates the qualifica-
tions of members, how can he, consistently
with his obligations here, daily and hourly
see around him, forming a part of this body,
and participating in its deliberations, gen-
tlemen known by the very appellations they
bear not to be within the conditions of that
bill?
Mr RIDGELY, I will answer that question.
I have no official knowledge whatever
that there is a single inember of this body
disqualified, under my theory, from parti-
cipating in the organization of this body.
What may be rumor is not for me to go upon.
This House has devolved upon one of its com-
mittees the very inquiry which we are now dis-
cussing, and I chose to defer what I had to
say until a report should be made by that com-
mittee, whereby I might get the information
upon which to act as a delegate to this body,
Mr MILLER resumed: The question is upon
the adoption of the order submitted by the
gentleman from Kent (Mr. Chambers,) in-
structing the Committee on Elections to report
as speedily as possible. I am in favor of the |
