"That this Constitution shall not be altered, changed or abolished except in the manner therein prescribed and directed.”

Now, if gentlemen will turn to the present Constitution they will find the following provision.

it is competent for the people in delegating | Certainly the incorporation of the words now that sovereignty to limit it. Holding that opin-offered as an amendment by the gentleman ion, I think it is perfectly consistent with from Calvert, into the present Constitution, that view that this provision of the present gave rise to great difficulties, and there were Constitution should stand as it is. When very lengthy and protracted debates upon the they undertake to act under an organized question of calling this Convention. Art. government, it is competent for them to state 43d, in the Declaration of Rights, says: that certain powers have been taken away from them. I want it to be clearly set forth in this provision that, when they shall have adopted this Constitution, it will be incompetent for them to go behind it except in the mode of resorting to forcible revolution. I only want that we should say to the people, the generation that shall follow us, and the people in all time to come, that if they sball undertake by any action of theirs to modify this form of government unless in the mode indicated here, it must be a resort to violent revolution That is not the kind of revolution ordinarily practised heretofore in this country. In that view of it, I see no inconsistency.

Mr. CLARKE. I rise, not for the purpose of entering into a discussion of the question which has arisen, but to say that I do not think the amendment of the gentleman from Calvert is subject to the criticism made by the gentleman from Baltimore city (Mr. Stockbridge.) Chief Justice Dorsey was the chairman of this committee in the last Convention, and I should hardly suppose a man as learned in the law as he would have committed such a mistake, and that it would have been reserved to the gentleman from Baltimore city to have, for the first time, found it out. The preamble reads thus:

'We, the people of the State of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty, and taking into our serious consideration the best means of establishing a good onstitution in this State for the sure foundation and more permanent security thereof, declare—”

For the purpose of establishing a good Constitution, we, the people of the State of Maryland, declare that all governinent of right originates from the people, is founded in compact only, and instituted solely for the good of the whole." That is the announcement of a general principle. "And they have at all times, in the mode prescribed in this Constitution, the unalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their form of government in such manner as they may deem expedient. I understand "they" as referring back to we, the people of Maryland." We, the people of Maryland, have at all times, in the mode prescribed by this Constitution, the right to alter, reform or abolish our form of government in such manner as we may deem expedient.

Mr. SANDS. I do not propose to enter into the merits of the controversy with regard to the proper wording of this article, for I think the amendment open to a graver objection.

"Art. 11. It shall be the duty of the Legislature, at its first session immediately succeeding the returns of every census of the United States hereafter taken, to pass a law for ascertaining, at the next general election of delegates, the sense of the people of Maryland in regard to calling a Convention for altering the Constitution; and in case the majority of votes cast at said election shall be in favor of calling a Convention, the Legislature shall provide for assembling such Convention, and electing delegates thereto at the earliest convenient day; and the delegates to the said Convention shall be elected by the several counties of this State and the city of Baltimore, in proportion to their representation respectively in the Senate and House of Delegates, at the time when said Convention may be called."

The difficulty arose in this way. The Constitution, they said, prescribed the manner of its own alteration, and it was argued by the enemies of the calling of this Convention, that that direction in the Constitution having been neglected, the next session of the Legislature after the taking of the census not having called a Convention, no subsequent Legislature had the right, power and authority to do it. That was the position, as I understand it, taken here by gentlemen who opposed the calling of this Convention. Not being a member of the Legislature, I did not myself hear the debates, but I saw it stated in the papers, and I know that was their point. We had no right to a Convention at all, because the mode and manner prescribed by the Constitution had not been followed. The difficulty arose simply from the existence of the 43d Article, and the words which the gentleman now proposes to put in the first. That I understand to have been the difficulty in the way of calling this Convention. I shall vote against the amendment because I desire to see no such difficulty in the future.

I think the principle enunciated in this first article is good. It is true "that all government, of right, originates from the people, is founded in compact only, and instituted solely for the good of the whole; and they have at all times the unalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their form of government in such manner as they may deem expedient." I think, too, that this is a consistent interpre

tation of the article. The right to alter, re- had lived. In thus limiting the democratic form or abolish, is in this very article called principle, they inflicted a wrong upon the | unalienable. What is the signification of that sense of the word applied to the right they word "unalienable?" You cannot by statu- meant to enunciate, for they made it anything tory provisions, or any provision put into a else but "unalienable." Constitution, deprive the people of this right. The plain meaning of the term is something that cannot be taken away." No restraining or subtracting power of the Legislature, or of any body of men, who frame or adopt | such a Constitution as this, can ever take away from the people the right to alter, reform or abolish their form of government. It is an unalienable right; that is, its power resides in the people and cannot be taken away from them. It seems to me that the two ideas are inconsistent, an unalienable right, and a right alienated, given up, or surrendered by the people. How can the people surrender an unalienable right?

I do not suppose that the motives which would impel the people at any time to alter, reform or abolish their Constitution, would destroy the operation of this principle. I am not afraid of any revolutionary conspiracy in this State against the right contended for. I have no idea that if the doctrine is to be enunciated at all, it should be clogged by any provision whatever; and I shall therefore vote against the proposed amendment. Mr. CHAMBERS. The question before the Convention at this moment has occupied the attention of many jurists of the State, and has been very fruitful of discussion. There seems to me to be some misconception as to the past history of this subject. I have before me the Declaration of Rights as originally adopted, the first Declaration of Rights adopt

the whole doctrine which is embodied in the late Constitution, and which it is now proposed to embody in the present Constitution. It is in these words:

"Art. 1. All government of right originates from the people, is founded in compact only, and instituted solely for the good of the whole.

As to the phraseology of this article, I think, as suggested by the gentleman from Baltimore city, (Mr. Stockbridge) that if the latter part is to stand as it is in the presented by the people of the State, which contains Constitution, the former part is inconsistent with it; and it ought to be changed so as to read that "the government of this State of right originates from the people thereof, is founded in compact only, and instituted solely for the good of the people of Maryland; and they have at all times in the mode prescribed in this Constitution, the unalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their form of government, in such manner as they may deem expedient." That phraseology would be more consistent. But I believe we have no right to attempt by this Constitution to take away an unalienable right. We have no right to put into the Constitution words that might be construed into taking from the people an unalienable right. For these reasons I shall vote against the amendment of the gentleman from Calvert.

Mr. SCHLEY. At the adoption of the Constitution under which we now live, for the first time I think in the Constitution of Maryland, the truth enunciated in this proposed article of our Declaration of Rights, made its appearance. It set forth, according to our form of government, a right declared to be unalienable; that is, the right to reform. But at the same time, the democratic principle which it enunciated was emasculated by the introduction of the words, "in the mode prescribed in this Constitution." How does the present phraseology of the sentence differ in meaning and effect from this reading?

"And they have only the right according to the mode prescribed by this Constitution, to alter, reform or abolish their form of government."

What makes this particularly inconsistent in the present Constitution is the fact that this Constitution was adopted in violation of the mode previously prescribed for altering or amending the Constitution under which we

"Art. 2. That the people of this State ought to have the sole and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and police thereof."

The gentleman who has last spoken, is mistaken as to the force and effect of the provision in the first Constitution, in supposing that it did not limit the mode in which amendments to the Constitution were to be adopted. In Art. 42d of the Declaration of Rights, first made, it is provided—

That this Declaration of Rights, or the form of government to be established by this Convention, or any part of either of them, ought not to be altered, changed or abolished by the Legislature of this State but in such manner as this Convention shall prescribe and direct."

Mr. SCHLEY. The gentleman misunderstood me. I said that the Constitution under which we live was not made in strict conformity with the provisions of the old Constitution.

Mr. CHAMBERS. It was a subject of very much doubt with many persons learned in constitutional law, whether by this means the Convention had not forfeited all claim to the respect of the people; but it was conceded, I believe, everywhere, that if the Constitution was adopted by that Convention, and recognized by the existing government of the State, and not opposed by any popular movement, it became, whatever infirmity might be charged upon it in the incipient stage of the proceedings, imperative upon all the people

This constitutes the case of the Dorr rebellion. There a certain class of individuals, a very large portion of the voters of the State of Rhode Island, undertook to change the government without any preliminary legis

of the State. There were gentlemen in that Convention who claimed that they had a right, legally, to assemble such a portion of the people as demonstrated a general assent, and that they had the right by law, by such a movement to call a Convention, which Con-lative act. The government of Rhode Island vention should be considered as the repre- did not choose to submit to the Constitution sentative of the popular will, and therefore which they made. The government existing entitled to respect at the hands of the State. prior to the Convention thought proper to This doctrine was opposed. It was said, and maintain their position and to treat this effort I had the honor myself to entertain and ex- to change the government as a rebellion. press that opinion, that the only mode origi- Mr. Dorr, who was the leading person in the nally known by which government could be movement, was indicted; and in the course changed was that of revolution. I had yet of that trial gentlemen will find a great deal to know the man who denied the right of re- of learning exhibited by the counsel in the volution to any people. We claimed our case, our case, especially by Mr Webster; and this national existence, iu consequence of main- American doctrine was enforced. Now if taining that doctrine, and we established it Mr. Dorr's project had been acquiesced in by when we separated from Great Britain. I the existing government, and the Constituknow no class of persons who have ever tion which they proposed to adopt had been thought proper to deny that any community sanctioned by the people, and they had organpossessed the right, when oppressed to an ex-ized their government under it, no doubt at tent that by universal assent requires resist-all it would have very properly been considance, to revolutionize its government. I hold ered the organic law of the land. But they that now the people of this State have the did not choose to do so; and the people right, if in their majesty they can rise and neither had the benefit of an insurrectionary obtain the sanction of the community to their or revolutionary government, nor of a govproceedings, to resist oppression by revolution. ernment created by the instrumentality of the But revolution is not only very fatal to the American system. interests of a community, but it is a very troublesome operation. No revolution can be effectual without a subsequent acquiescence of the community in which that revolution has existed. It will not do for a revolution- | ary government to declare itself, without the aid of any military force or offensive weapon, omnipotent; and to declare its proceedings obligatory upon all within its territorial jurisdiction. Such a declaration would be a brutum fulmen. It must be obeyed by the existing government, not opposed by it. It must be admitted to have effect, by the community. It then becomes the will of that community. The preceding government retiring voluntarily, gives place to the government which comes in without force, or they are compelled to abandon their position by force and the new government takes their place.

The result, therefore, is that in all the States of this Union the mode prescribed by the Constitution of the State is adopted.

Yet

It has been contended by some that the mode in which the people may alter or reform their organic law was not to be controlled by any previous constitutional enactment. our ablest minds have held differently. Judge Story in his commentaries, and Mr. Webster in his speeches, have maintained that the people may impose restraints upon themselves. Some gentlemen say you cannot bind the people; that you cannot make any generation submit to the dictates of the generation preceding, and so on. We know a man can bind himself. I am a perfectly free agent, but I may enter into a contract with my neighbor, and impose obligations upon myself. Certain it is that in this State, with the exception of the last Convention, the Constitution has never The difficulty, as well as the dangers of re-been changed except in the mode prescribed. volution, have given rise to what has been very emphatically, as well as very properly, termed the American system of changing the government-a system known throughout all the States of this Union and practiced everywhere. Those who for the moment represent the peo-hold a Convention. ple in their legislative bodies, or in some recognized assembly supposed to utter the sentiments of the people, prescribe that a Convention shall be held, the time and manner being named. This question is submitted to the people calmly, and a vote is taken in the proper place and at the proper time, and if sanctioned, the object being considered proper and laudable, the Convention is held by the express acquiescence of the community.

by the Constitution. And as I understand, the opinion is not now expressed anywhere that the powers of this Convention arise from any other source than the observance by the people of the advice of their Legislature to

My colleague upon the committee (Mr. Hebb) is very much more acquainted with the discussions that preceded the adoption of this bill of rights by the committee than I am. However, I will say no more about that. I invoke his recollection whether there was not adopted by the committee in their report an article at the close of this bill of rights, relating to the manner of altering or changing the Constitution. Such is my recollection,

many members of this Convention have fallen, upon this branch of the report of the Committee on the Declaration of Rights; that is, that in the report as printed there is no provision covering the ground my amendment proposes to cover. But if I am to understand that provision is to be considered as already embraced in the report of the committee will withdraw my amendment.

The PRESIDENT. That provision is in the original report, it is omitted in this only by error of the printer.

Mr. BRISCOE. My object is reached by this 44th article, and I therefore withdraw my amendment in order to prevent any difficulty. Mr. PUGH. I was about to say that rather than support this amendment

The PRESIDENT. There is no amendment pending.

J

are not satisfied with what we may do here, all they need do is to assemble in their primary meetings, elect other delegates, have a Convention here in Annapolis, or in Baltimore city, or wherever else they choose to assemble, form a Constitution, and according to the theory of the gentleman from HowIard, that would have just as much the sanction of law as the Constitution we may frame here. Now if that be the doctrine, then I would say that there were only 30,000 voters in this State who voted in favor of this Convention, while the whole vote of the State is something like 90,000. We wanted a provision in the bill requiring a majority of the 90,000 in favor of the Convention before it should assemble. It is to be presumed that the balance of the voters, 60,000, or say 50,000, are opposed to the assembling of this Convention. Now if the majority of the people of this State have the right to frame such a Constitution as they think proper and when they think proper, all that is necessary to be done is to have a Convention assemble representing those 50,000 voters, and according to the gentleman from Howard it would have just as much authority as this Convention. I am merely calling the attention of members to this matter-those who are announcing their wild theories here, which will catch the ear of the populace who like something radical, such as this " power of the people"-in order that they may stop and reflect a moment and see where they are going; see if they are not carrying out an idea involving the power of those who were silent at the polls to exert their will with just as much authority as those here.

Mr. CLARKE. Simply as a matter of history, and to put those, who in the last Legislature voted against this Convention bill, in their true position, I will state that I was one who had the privilege of voting against that bill, and also of discussing its provisions. As I understand it, the ground taken then against the bill was not that the Legislature had not power to call this Convention. In the argument and upon the vote which I gave upon the question, I conceded the power of the Legislature to call this Convention; and I stated that if the Legislature would pass a constitutional bill to take the sense of the people upon the call of a Convention, it would receive my vote for that purpose. The ground taken, however, was this: that although the Legislature had the power, it must carry it out in the manner prescribed by the Constitution. That Constitution prescribes, in the first place, that the question should be taken first as to whether the people would have a Convention. Until the people had decided that question, there was no power on the part of the Legislature to call a Convention; that the election of members to the Convention must be subsequent to the people voting that they wanted a Convention; and the power existed in the Legislature to provide for the assembling of a Convention only after the people by their votes had declared that there should be a Convention. But no gentleman acting with those with whom I acted, denied the power of the Legislature to provide for the assembling of a Convention. And we said we would support a bill, provided it did not contain that unconstitutionality and several others, which were in the bill which was passed.

I would say further, without entering at length, into the argument upon the proposition announced in this first article, that if the gentleman from Howard (Mr. Sands) is correct, then the doctrine is just this. are assembled in Convention here to frame the organic law of the State. According to the doctrine of the gentleman, if the people

We

Mr. PUGH. I thought the President informed me just now that there was nothing before the Convention.

The PRESIDENT. There is no amendment pending; this first article is before the House for consideration.

Mr. JONES, of Somerset. I desire to move an amendment to this first article. It now reads:

"That all government of right originates. from the people, is founded in compact only, and instituted solely for the good of the whole; and they have at all times the unalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their form of government in such manner as they may deem expedient."

I propose to add the following:

"But this right ought only to be exercised in the mode previously agreed upon and prescribed by the people, whenever the mode of alteration or amendment of their form of government has been agreed upon and prescribed by the people in their written Constitulion."

Now, sir, I am a strict constructionist and a conservative man to an extent that I suppose I shall not find many upon this floor to go beyond me. I hold the abstract prin