alienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper." I will now make one or two references to the Constitutions of some of the Southern States. I turn to the Constitution of the State of Tennessee. In their Declaration of Rights the first article is in these words: them, in reference to the change of their organic law, anything that any previous Convention may have ordained. For that reason I think that whilst it is proper for us to insert in its proper place a provision in reference to amendments or alterations of this Constitution, that provision ought not to be in the terms of the present Constitution, that the people shall alter or amend in this way and no other; which the people have disregarded for themselves and treated as an absurd assertion on the part of those who made That all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness; for the advancement of those ends, they have, at all times, an un-it. I shall therefore support this article as it alienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper." I now turn to the bill of rights of the Constitution of Mississippi, which is the last one from which I will now read. It is therefore this Convention. The question of the declared "That all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and established for their benefit; and, therefore, they have, at all times, an unalienable and indefeasible right to alter or abolish their form of government in such manner as they may think expedient." I find the same in the Constitutions of the States of Connecticut, Virginia, Kentucky, Alabama, and every other State that I have examined. That simple doctrine is asserted, and left to stand alone in its grandeur. And nowhere in the bill of rights of any of these States do I find anything that provides for the amendment or alteration of their Constitutions. 1, therefore, prefer to take the article here as it now stands, and to follow the guides that have been laid down for us by the embodied enlightenment of all the States of this Union in making their Constitutions, rather than to alter it or add anything to it, which, in my judgment, materially detracts from its force and effect. now stands, without amendment or alteration. Mr. BOND. It appears to me that in the discussion of this question there has not been that clearness of statement as to what the question really is, that ought to be put beunalienable right of the people to change their government has been mixed up with the question of the expediency of providing some particular mode in which that right shall be exercised. Now, sir, no one denies the right of the people to modify or change their Constitution at will. That is a principle so universally acknowledged that no man in any part of the United States, that I am aware of, has ever been heard to deny it. But the question here, and the only question, as I understand it, is the expediency of providing some particular mode by which the people shall act in their exercise of this right. Shall the people, by the broad declaration contained in this first article of the report of the Committee of the Bill of Rights, be left at liberty to adopt the course of proceeding which Dorr adopted in Rhode Island; shall they be left at liberty to say at any timeour Constitution wants alteration-and to call meetings throughout the State, in any county or city of the State? Why, sir, such a course would be productive of the greatest anarchy and the greatest evils, and would As I have already said, I shall move in the probably result in war and bloodshed beproper place-under the head of amend- tween contending parties. The only thing, ments to the Constitution, or some other therefore, which seems to me to be necessary proper place--I shall move myself, if some to provide for in this Constitution, is a way other gentleman does not, to insert a provi- for the people to exercise their right to change sion prescribing the mode in which this Con- their Constitution; not that the people have stitution shall be altered or changed. But I no such right, or shall be bound by the act think that provision ought to be rather ad- of this Convention for all time; because the visory and suggestive than positive and di- right of revolution lies behind and beyond rectory in its terms, as it was in the last Con- anything this Convention can do to bind stitution, and which the people disregarded; them; nobody doubts that, nobody denies it. or at least as it was in the Constitition of But is it not the safer and better course to 1776, which, according to the gentleman point out some peaceful mode, regulated by from Somerset, (Mr. Jones,) the people dis-law, by which this change may be brought regarded in 1850. The people have always claimed the right, whenever they chose to alter their own Constitution, to do it in their own way. And whether that change in its incipieucy comes from the people, or it is ratified by the people when proposed by others, it makes no difference; the people have said they will not consider binding upon about whenever the people desire it? And it is with that view that I propose to offer an amendment to the amendment of the gentleman from Somerset (Mr. Jones) to strike out all after the word "manner" in the fourth line of this article, and insert the words "as may be provided by this Constit. tion." Then the article will read : "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 (not as they may deem expedient,' but) as may be provided by this Constitution." That leaves the full and plenary right of the people unimpaired in that respect, and simply points out a peaceful mode, regulated by law, by which they shall act and when they shall act. Is not that a safer course than to leave the matter as it now stands in this first article, which would seem to authorize any demagogue to start up with a proposition to reform the Constitution? As I said before, such a course would be attended with great danger to the peace of the community. The only effect of the amendment which I have the honor to submit is simply to point out a peaceful, quiet mode, regulated by law, by which this alteration shall be made. Now, it may be said, if this amendment should be adopted, it would conflict with the 44th article of the report as made to this Convention. That article reads thus: Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's. Would it be in order to move to strike out a portion of the original article? The PRESIDENT. Not until the pending amendments are dispose of. Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's. The object which I proposed to accomplish was to have all the first article stricken out after the word "whole," in the third line of the report. If that were done, it would then leave this first article to conform to the first article. of the Declaration of Rights in the old Constitution of our State, and would then read thus: "That all government of right originates from the people, is founded in compact only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole." That would conform precisely to the provisions in the old Constitution which was established in 1776. It is an enunciation of a principle well established, and it would then contain sufficient for all purposes in support of that principle. Now I do not agree with my friends that this is the place to authorize amendments to be made to the Constitution, or to point out any mode in which the Conal-stitution which we may frame here may hereafter be amended. I think the 44th article of the Declaration of Rights, as reported by the committee, accomplishes all that is desirable. That article provides- "That this Constitution shall not be altered, changed or abolished, except in the manner therein prescribed and directed.” That would be sufficient in the Declaration of Rights; and in some other portion of the Constitution that declaration could be carried out by setting forth the peculiar mode and manner in which the people might change their organic law hereafter, should they feel so disposed. "That this Constitution shall not be tered, changed or abolished, except in the manner therein prescribed and directed.'' When that 44th article is taken up it will be time enough to modify it; and I think it will be right so to modify that article as to make it conform to the provision I propose to insert. It is not that the Constitution shall not be altered, or changed, or modified, except in a certain way, because that would negative the idea that the people have the right to change or alter their form of government. They have that right undoubtedly, but it is the right of revolution; and no man denies that right. It is the right of revolution, and is nothing short of revolution, Now I do not agree with some of the genwhenever a reform of the Government is at- tlemen who have addressed this Convention, tempted in any other way than in the mode in their conclusion that the Convention beld pointed out by law, and regulated by law. in 1850 was in itself revolutionary. I will And my purpose is solely to bring to the con- state to those gentlemen that they will find sideration of the Convention the simple ques in no part of the Constitution of 1776 any tion of the expediency of pointing out in this article or section prohibiting the people from Constitution the mode by which it shall be calling together, at their will, a Convention altered, and not leave it to the wild vagary for the purpose of reframing or reconstructof any demagogue who may choose to asserting their organic law. By reference to that that the time has come for altering it. And the words "as they may deem expedient," now found in the article as it stands, would, it seems to me, justify any assembling of the people anywhere for the purpose of changing the Constitution. It is for that purpose alone that I have offered this amendment, and I hope it will be adopted. Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's. Will it now be in order to offer an amendment to the pending amendment? The PRESIDENT. It is not now in order, there being already an amendment to an amendment pending. Constitution, it will be found that it simply pointed out the mode in which the Constitution could be changed by the General Assembly of the State of Maryland; but not one word prohibiting the action of the people in that respect. I now refer to the 59th article of the old Constitution, which reads: "That this form of government, and the Declaration of Rights, and no part thereof, shall be altered, changed or abolished, unless a bill so to alter, change or abolish the same, shall pass the General Assembly and be published at least three months before a new election, and shall be confirmed by the General Assembly, after a new election of Delegates, in the first session after such new election; provided, that nothing in this form of government, which relates to the Eastern Shore particularly, shall at any time hereafter be altered, unless for the alteration and confirmation thereof at least two-thirds of all the members of each Branch of the General Assembly shall concur." It was not intended by the framers of that Constitution that there should be any prohibition of the right of the people at any time to arise in their majesty and assert their power as a sovereign people of a sovereign State. That article is only directory as to the mode in which the Constitution shall be changed by the General Assembly of the State. But according to my construction of the Constitution, there is no prohibition of action by the people at any time they may think proper. If I am right in my view, then the construction of my friend from Baltimore city is wrong; that this provision is unnecessary in the Constitution to be framed by us here, because all prohibitions have heretofore been disregarded by the people. Mr. DANIEL. The gentleman has misapprehended my argument. I merely said that this was not the proper place for such a provision; that it should come in in another place. call together another Convention for the purpose of reframing the organic law of our State. Let us act here not from prejudice, but from principle. Let us look to the true interests of the people of this State. If we look to that, and adopt that as our guide in the course of action we may take here, we will then frame a Constitution which will meet with the approval of the people, and will subserve the purposes and interests of generations to come. We are not here to make a Constitution for a day we are here to make a Constitution for all time to come, and I trust that we will bring to bear the highest wisdom in perfecting an organic law for the future government of the people of the State. Mr. SANDS. I had not purposed yesterday to occupy the time of this Convention in discussing this question; and I am sure gentlemen will bear me out in saying that I was very brief in the remarks I then submitted. But I find it necessary in order to the correction of an impression which may then have been made, to occupy your time briefly this morning. I stated yesterday that it had been an objection urged by the opponents to the call of this Convention that the Legislature which called it had no power to do so; the provision in the Constitution being that it should be Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's. I under-done by the next Legislature convening after stood my friend to say that all prohibitions had been heretofore disregarded by the people, and therefore it was unnecessary to place any such provision in the Constitution. Mr. DANIEL. The gentleman misunderstood me then. I said that I thought it should not come in in this particular place, but that I was in favor of it in another place. Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's. I hold, sir, that the people have at all times the right to change their organic law. But I hold further that there should be a mode pointed out by which that change can be attained. If I understand the case referred to by gentlemen here on yesterday-the case which arose in Rhode Island-and if I understand the course of argument there pursued by Mr. Webster, it was this: that the election that took place there was objectionable because there was no body in existence which had presented the question to the people to be passed upon by thein; as to whether they would have a change in their organic law; that it was necessary that the quo modo should be clearly and distinctly pointed out; and that not being done, therefore the people had not properly passed upon the question, and the action taken was nugatory and would not be carried out. I hope that all these provisions may be carefully examined, and fully and freely discussed; and that there may be such wisdom brought to bear by this Convention, in framing the organic law of this State, as will make it unnecessary for years and years to come to the taking of the census of the United States. That statement was met by the excellent gentleman from Kent (Mr. Chambers)—than whom I am sure nobody in this Convention knows more about anything-that it had remained for the gentleman from Howard to turn political Columbus and discover that great fact; that it had never, either by steam or electricity, penetrated to the depths of Kent county; and that he did not believe that anybody but myself had ever heard the statement. Now I hold in my hand, in all the dignity of sheepskin, the message of Gov. Bradford to the Legislature which called this Convention, in which this very statement is contained. I understood the gentleman from Prince George's (Mr. Clarke) also to declare that it was Lis first hearing of this fact Mr. CLARKE. I did not say it was my first hearing of it. I said that when the vote was taken upon the bill calling this Convention, in defining the reasons which governed me in that vote, I expressly admitted the power of the Legislature to call a Convention. And when the member from Howard county (Mr. Tyson) offered a bill upon this floor upon that subject, I expressed my willingness to vote for it, because I regarded it as a constitutional bill, and I was willing the sense of the people should be taken upon the subject. And gentlemen now here, who were members of that Legislature, will bear me out in the statement that I voted for the proposition of Mr. Tyson. Mr. SANDS. If I have wronged the gentle man in classing him with the gentleman from Kent (Mr. Chambers) I beg his pardon. But I must beg him not to burden my shoulders with any sins committed by my predecessors. Mr. CLARKE. I had heard Gov. Bradford's argument, but thought that he had erected a great many castles in the air, which he was trying to overthrow, which nobody ever supposed until then existed. Mr SANDS. Not being the Secretary of State, or Gov. Bradford's Private Secretary, I cannot be called upon to answer that. I will now read from page 26 of House Documents for 1864 what the Governor said upon that occasion: "The first point involved in its consideration is one of constitutional power." L And right here let me say, as I have said before, that while I have all due reverence for Constitutions, I am determined not to perish, as I have known some men to do, of {{ constitution on the brain." Now as to Now as to what the Governor says in his message: "The first point involved in its consideration is one of constitutional power. It has been supposed by some, thatinasmuch as the Constitution provides that the question of its amendment shall be submitted to the people by the Legislature which assembles first after the taking of each census, that such question can be submitted at no other time and by no other body, and that the last Legislature, having failed to perform that constitutional duty, it cannot be discharged by the present." Now, if the objection to the calling of this Convention by the last Legislature is not clearly and distinctly stated in this executive document, I do not know what is clearly stated. And, in contradistinction to the opinion of the gentleman from Prince George's (Mr. Clarke) I think the Governor's logic on this matter is just as sound as it is possible for reasoning to be. Hear it: notice. My friend, the gentleman from Prince George's, (Mr. Clarke,) by the manner in which he adverted to the meagreness of the vote at the election for this Convention, hinted, I thought, that it was scarcely coming up to the dignity of sovereign State action, inasmuch, I understood him to say, only some 30,000 votes were cast at that election. Mr. CLARKE. For the Convention; not at the election; 50,000 votes were cast at the election; 30,000 in favor of a Convention. Mr. SANDS. The gentleman is a thousand votes or more out of the way. Mr. CLARKE. Well; 31,000. Mr. SANDS. The vote cast at the election was between 51,000 and 52,000, of which 31,000 and more were in favor of the Convention. And we were sent here by almost two-thirds of nearly 52,000 votes. If, for the reason that only 31,000 and some hundreds of the qualified electors of the State voted for us, we are not here in a position to act as the representatives of the sovereign State of Maryland, then I ask what, on this same doctrine, becomes of that Convention which assembled in this hall in 1850? Burns put a very good sentiment into homely Scotch jingle, when he said: "Facts are chiels wha winnading, It is always best to rely upon facts, and if we do so, then if this objection holds good as to us, we will see how it applies to the Convention of 1850. If gentlemen will turn to the proceedings of the Maryland State Convention of 1850, they will find on the page immediately succeeding the index, that the total vote cast at the election for calling that Convention, all parties included, for and against, amounted to only 29,463 votes; not as many votes cast then, both for and against a Convention, by some thousands as were cast in favor of the assembling of this Convention. Then what becomes of the objection to this Convention, or its status as the representative of the sovereign people of Maryland, in the face of the fact, that the Constitution under which we have been living since 1851, was made by a Convention called together by a vote of less than 29,000 citizens of the State. of Maryland. "The error of such a theory is in failing to discriminate between a question of duty and one of right, for though the duty imposed by the Constitution of submitting the subject of amendment to the people at stated times attaches only to the Legislature immediately succeeding the returns of the census, get the right of submitting such a question The gentleman may ask, where, after you. and providing for a Convention belongs as have counted the 52,000 votes cast at this. unquestionably to you as it did to your im-election, are the balance of the 90,000 voters. mediate predecessors, or to any preceding Legislature.' There is the true distinction between the duty of the Legislature which convened next after the taking of the census, and the right of any subsequent Legislature to do what the last Legislature did; that is, to give the people an opportunity of reforming their organic law. Now there is another point I must briefly of this State? Now, sir, I have an answer to that in part. Some of them were abroad: on land and at sea, upholding the banner of their country-God bless them for doing that.. Gentlemen may suggest bayonets. But where were the absentees of 1850? Bayonets were unknown things at that time. Gentle men say-why did not the people turn out in.. force in 1864? I ask, why did they not turn out in force in 1850? There was a greater: disparity between the votes cast then, and without any reason whatever for it, and the actual vote of the State, than there is now. I say we are here, and fairly called here, by a larger vote than ever before was given for the same purpose in the State of Maryland. And I have heard the talk about "emancipation vagaries," &c. Now I did not intend to touch that matter to-day; and if I ever address this Convention again, I expect it will be but once more, and on that very subject. I do not intend to touch it to-day. But gentlemen better remember that what they call "vagaries," are the solemn convictions of at least 31,000, some hundred men, who went to the polls last month and voted for the call of this Convention Those are rather weighty vagaries, and gentlemen better give them their just consideration. They are no vagaries, but solemn convictions, which have been forced upon the minds and hearts of the people by the deplorable events of the last few sorrowful and bloody years. I cannot agree with the gentleman from Prince George's, (Mr. Berry) that the call for the Convention of 1850 approximated nearer to the provisions of the pre-existing Constitution than the one for this Convention did. Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's. I made no such statement, I said that there was no prohibition in the old Constitution against the call of a sovereign Convention. It only pointed out the mode in which the General Assembly could change the Constitution. Mr. SANDS. I think the gentleman is still in error. Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's. Then correct that error. Mr. SANDS. I will do so. On page 27 of this document you will find the following: "The manner in which our former Constitution was changed, was, as we all remember, apparently in decided conflict with the provision it contained for its own amendment." Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's. From what does the gentleman read? Mr. SANDS. From Gov. Bradford's message. Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's. I was speaking of the old Constitution. Mr. SANDS. And I am speaking and reading of the old Constitution to the Legislature, and is in consonance with the terms of the pre-existing Constitution and the facts connected with the last Convention. Now this is what will settle that point: "It was by that Constitution expressly declared, that it should only be changed or abolished by the acts of two successive Legislatures in a manner particularly specified, yet, (adds the Governor, and which is the fact) it was entirely abrogated by the action of a Convention.” Now the truth of the matter is just this, as gentlemen well know; the Constitution existing anterior to 1850 declared that it was amendable only in a specific way, that specific way and method being by the acts of two successive Legislatures. Now who pretends that the Convention of 1850 assembled in conformity with the provisions of the then existing Constitution? Mr. BELT. Will my friend from Howard (Mr. Sands) allow me to make a single suggestion? Mr. SANDS. Certainly. Mr. BELT. It is that possibly the Governor in his message, and the gentleman in his argument, entirely overlook the 42d section of the old Declaration of Rights. It is true, that the clause in the Constitution prescribes the acts of two successive Legislatures as the manner in which the Constitution shall be changed. But the 42d article of the Declaration of Rights settles the question. It is: "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." But that makes no reference whatever to the original power of the Legislature to call a Convention. Mr. SANDS. There is a radical difference between the old bill of rights and the old Constitution. The Constitution itself contained exactly the provision which the Governor stated. The 59th article says: "That this form of government, and the Declaration of Rights, and no part thereof, shall be altered, changed or abolished, unless a bill so to alter, change or abolish the same, shall pass the General Assembly and be published at least three months before a new elec"The manner in which our former Consti- tion, and shall be confirmed by the General tution was changed, was, as we all remember, Assembly after a new election of delegates, in apparently in decided conflict with the pro- the first session after such new election; provision it contained for its own amendment:vided that nothing in this form of governcertainly far more so than is presented by the ment which relates to the Eastern Shore parobjection last noticed." ticularly," &c. That is the objection against which I argued yesterday. Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's. Is that the gentleman's argument, or Gov. Brad¡ford's? Mr. SANDS. It is Gov. Bradford's message That is unimportant. I do not mean that the Eastern Shore is unimportant, for I have very great respect for that section of country; but the remainder of the article is unimportant. There stood the Constitution which wa |