see fit. But if the Convention does this, it is guilty of a breach of good faith to the people whom they here represent. The city of Annapolis, one of the oldest cities in the State, a city which has been the location of our Government for more than a century and a half, a city which at the time the Government was located here, had far less facilities for approach than it has at this day, now possessing all the modern improvements, now beautified by the improvements of time, situated in a delightful climate, with a beautiful bay, with everything cool, delightful, and refreshing around us, is in my opinion, the city of all others in the State of Maryland that we ought to be anxious to hold this Convention in. ! tional power to indicate Baltimore city as the place of the assembly of this Convention, just as much as to indicate Annapolis as the place of its assembling. They chose to indicate this city as the place of the assembling of this Convention. When they had done that, they had exhausted the constitutional power under which they were acting. As soon as we assembled here, and organized, we became a sovereign body, untrammeled by any constitutional restrictions as to the particular place where we should hold our sessions. This is the whole ground of the constitutional objection. Then the question is reduced to a matter of mere convenience. Will anybody say here that Annapolis is as convenient for the asYes, sir; this very hall held once some of sembling of this Convention and for its sesthe brightest sons of the State, who here met sions as Baltimore city? I understand that and acted for the welfare of the State; and I every member from the Eastern Shore of trust that some of us may gather some of the Maryland is compelled to go through the city inspiration of those great and good patriots of Baltimore in order to reach this place. of the past and be induced to do all in our The whole State labors under great disadpower to stem the torrent of radicalism and vantages in getting here. If the gentlemen fanaticism which seems on the eve of over-will refer to the Declaration of Rights in the running our State; and that we shall under Constitution of 1776 they will see that the that inspiration of the past, prepare such a very reason assigned for making Annapolis Constitution for the people of Maryland that the seat of government was that it was the they can with their hearts endorse it, and most convenient place for the members of the present that Constitution in such a way that Legislature to assemble in. If convenience there will be no doubt but that they will was an element operating upon the minds of come up and endorse it. those who framed the original Constitution of Maryland, in the selection of a place for the sitting of their Legislature, why should it not now, when the whole population of the State and everything in the State is changed, when Western Maryland, that was then a wilderness comparatively, has become populous, be equally regarded in the selection of a place for the sittings of our Convention? So far as I am concerned, I see no rational objection why the people of the present age should not consult their convenience as well as the citizens of Maryland in 1776. There is no difference. The reason of the rule, the reason of the act constitutes the law which governs everything else resting upon that foundation. Mr. NEGLEY. I shall undertake to give a few reasons why I shall oppose this substitute. The admission by the gentleman who has just taken his seat of the constitutional power of this Convention to transfer its sittings anywhere else is an abandonment in toto of the constitutional objection to its removal. The very renunciation of the constitutional power of this Convention to transfer its sittings either to Baltimore, Upper Marlborough, Hagerstown, or Cumberland, is an entire abandonment of any constitutional objection. Then, sir, what are the reasons to be combated? What are the reasons now to operate on our minds in acting on this measure? The Constitution of the State of Maryland has imposed upon the Legislature the duty every Now as to some of the objections to Baltiten years to pass a law taking the sense of the more. We can have as many conveniences people of Maryland on the question of hold-there as we can have here. We can have ing a Convention to remodel or reform its fundamental law. In that they authorized and empowered, and made it obligatory upon the Legislature in passing that law, to enact the place and the means of assembling. When the Legislature of Maryland at its last session provided the means, and passed a law for the taking the sense of the people of Maryland, and indicated the place of the assembling of this Convention, they had exhausted Gentlemen say that the members of the the constitutional power they were acting Convention will scatter over the city of Balunder. It is absolutely necessary, as a mat- timore, and that the Sergeant-at-Arms will ter of convenience, that some place should be have great trouble in finding them. Do they indicated where this Convention should as-not scatter now? When this Convention semble. The Legislature had the constitu- adjourns do they all stay in the city of An more. We can have halls that are as airy, of sectionalism in this State. It is that ter rible spirit that now involves this country in the bloodiest civil war that in the annals of time was ever witnessed. It has arisen solely from that sectional spirit that will not acknowledge that the individual good is necessarily involved in the general welfare. Mr. BELT. The grounds upon which I shall vote against the proposition to remove the Convention have been, as a general thing, so fully stated by my friend from Anne Arundel (Mr. Miller) that I shall detain the Convention but a few moments to advert to one or two considerations upon which he has not touched. napolis? Do they not go away on the boat and cars? On every Sunday this city will be as empty of members as it can be. And will not the Sergeant-at-Arms have the additional trouble of going on the boat to Baltimore to hunt up members, and of going to Baltimore by railroad to hunt them up? If we were in the city of Baltimore, he might have to run over the city, but that would be about all If we stay here he will have to traverse both lines, by railway and steamboat, to hunt up the scattered members. I positively and honestly believe that the labors of the Convention will be completed at a much earlier day if we go to the city of Baltimore than if we remain bere. The members will have time enough for recreation and for meeting in committee. They will go to Baltimore in spite of your determination | to stay here. There is no power that will keep them here. I have heard many say they will go there and board, coming here in the morning and going back in the evening; and where will their labors on the committees be?preciate the earnestness with which both of If we go to Baltimore they will have abundance of time both for recreation and for attending to their duties on committees; and the labors of the Convention will be much earlier completed. Looking at the question, then, in all points of view, the constitutional objection being abandoned, and the convenience being greater there, I do not see why we should not go to Baltimore, unless upon the idea that we shall not be allowed freedom of debate there. That is an imputation as much upon the spirit of fair dealing on the part of members of this Convention as it is upon the city of Baltimore. I would do just as much against the city of Baltimore in that city as in any other spot in Maryland. Being there would not influence my vote one particle; nor would it influence the vote of any other member of this Convention. They will act on their solid convictions, free and independent of any outside pressure. I shall be the last to believe that any outside pressure or outside interference would be at all attempted. I have a better opinion of Baltimore city. I, too, with the gentleman from Howard, (Mr. Sands) am entirely opposed to the spirit of antagonism, of regarding the interests of Baltimore city as antagonistic to the interests of the State, and arraying the counties against the city of Baltimore. As well might the arm or the head mutiny against the stomach, and declare that they would have no community of interest. The life of Baltimore city is a life that ramifies through every county in the State. The prosperity of Baltimore is pro tanto the prosperity of the entire State. If you affect deleteriously the interests of any portion of Maryland the entire State suffers to some extent the consequences. It is irrational, it is unfair, it is unfraternal, to be eternally attempting to array a spirit First, in reference to the remarks that have fallen from the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Negley) and the gentleman from Howard, (Mr. Sands) in deprecation of any hostile feeling between the different sections of the State, and more particularly between the rural districts and Baltimore city. For one, I am a stranger to any such sentiment; nor can I ap those gentlemen have joined in such deprecation of that spirit. I have heard no member on this side of the House or the other say one word in derogation of Baltimore city. I know the prosperity of Baltimore is the prosperity of my county and of every other county in the State. I know that she is the centre of exchange and trade. I know that like all great cities she draws to her a large proportion of the moral and intellectual worth of the State, and an equally large proportion relatively of the capital and industry. I am proud of the city. I am proud of her achievements, of her standing, of her prospects; and I yield to no other Marylander in my admiration of her as a commercial emporium, within the proper sphere of her activity. I have the happiness to agree in sentiment, particularly on subjects of a political character, with the large majority, as I believe, of the people with whom we should come in contact if we were to remove to Baltimore. We should have then the additional advantage, which would be a matter in which I should greatly delight personally, of mingling with and daily conversing with a great many gentlemen of talent, professional men of experience and ability on the very subjects to which our attention will be here called. So I dismiss any consideration of antagonism to Baltimore city in the vote which I shall give on this question. So far from entertaining such a feeling, I should personally prefer the city of Baltimore for our sessions, for the reasons to which I have referred. To avoid any misapprehension, and at the risk of separating myself from perhaps a majority of gentlemen on both sides of the Convention, I will state that I base my opposition to this removal, first, upon the ground that we have no legal right, in my humble judgment to make this change. I am perfectly familiar with the doctrine which has been adverted to by several members, and which I believe to be held by most,-the American doctrine of the sovereignty of these Conventions. I do not dispute the sovereign power of the people, the fact that they are the source of power, that they can assemble en masse and change their laws, or that they can assemble Conventions equally sovereign to do the same thing. But I draw the distinction here. It is not only sovereign Conventions that are known to American law and practice, but bodies like this also, which by the very act that frames them, and the very circumstances under which they are assembled, only so far represent the sovereignty of the people as that sovereignty has indicated that it shall be represented by them. "Sovereign Conventions" undoubtedly may be held, when the people choose--but bodies like this are only assembled, as a general thing, in this country, for the mere restricted purpose of proposing amendments to the organic law, and they can in no just sense be said to possess the unlimited attributes of the sovereignty itself. This Convention meets under the sanction of a law passed by the last Legislature. That law prescribes the oath by which we shall qualify ourselves before taking seats here, and presents several other limitations upon our acts, one of which is that we shall begin our session, assemble, at Annapolis, and continue from day to day until our work is complete. I concur with the gentleman from Anne Arundel, (Mr. Miller) that the clear and obvious legal intendment and construction of that clause is that the session is to be continued from day to day where it began. Do I pretend that because this Convention is limited in respect to these clauses, it is limited by virtue of any alleged power of the Legislature to put a limitation upon a sovereign Convention? Not by any means, sir. The limitations are effective only because, having been submitted to popular vote, they have been ratified by the people at the polls, and therefore proceed, not from the Assembly, but from the great source of all power. What should be the extent of our powers was a part of the question submitted to the people and acted upon by them? should be possessed of full power from the people to overturn the laws, and the Constitution of the State, subject to no control but its own will; but the proposition for which the people voted was that the Convention should meet here for the purposes, with the objects, and under the limitations that were stated in the act by which the body was to be called. In other words, this Convention has whatever power the people have intended it should possess. The extent of that power is to be measured by a consideration of what the people did on the 6th day of April. I hold that the only question before them, on that day, and the only question which they voted upon and decided, was-not that a Sovereign Convention should meet-but that a Convention should assemble to propose changes in the organic law, the said body to be constituted in the manner and under the limitations contained in the act which authorized said election. Will it be pretended that we could violate that limitation in said act, which requires the submission of our action to a vote of the people? And if that limitation be binding, as qualifying our powers, why not the others? This is my opinion then, in which I have the misfortune to differ with many gentlemen, upon the true construction of the constitutional law. Admitting that sovereign Conventions may exist, I consider this as merely one of those American resorts to which the people of these States have so often had recourse to reform their government, and which fall outside of the scope of what we understand by strictly and absolutely sovereign Conventions. If I am not right upon that point, if it be true that this body is sovereign and can do anything it may think proper to do; if it be true that we may disregard the oath imposed for our qualification; if it be true that we may perform ordinary legislative functions; if it be true that we may, under the circumstances under which we now meet, annex this State, if we choose, to the State of Pennsylvania; if it be true that we may empty the treasury; if it be true that we are here as a sovereignty, with no legal obligations to be guided by at least I may successfully contend, as ably argued by the genWill it be said that the people can be lim-tleman from Anne Arundel, (Mr. Miller,) ited in their power to call Conventions, so that the passage of this bill and its adoption that any Convention called by them must ne- by the people, imposed upon us the highest cessarily be sovereign whether they intend it sort of moral obligation to be guided by its to be so or not? Do we not detract from the provisions, even if not legally binding, unless fullness of their sovereign power when we say some controlling reason be shown to the conthat they cannot call a Convention which trary. And that obligation is strengthened shall be a little less than sovereign? If sov. by the consideration of the antiquity of this ereignty be the great and controlling power city as our capital, its identification as such which according to our American law we are with the history of the State, the conveniences taught to believe it is, it ought certainly to which we have here, which have not been have the power of self regulation and self lim-shown to be surpassed by any superior conitation. The question under this bill was not whether there should assemble at the city of Annapolis a sovereign Convention which veniences of Baltimore or any other city, the knowledge that the people expected us to meet here, in precisely the place where the Legislature meets and where the Governor resides, and where the archives are deposited-all of which combine to enjoin upon us that we should here meet and continue our sessions at the capital of the State unless there can be shown some great controlling necessity, for removing. If there were a military necessity, for instance, I should have no objection in the world to moving to another point, and least of all should I have any objection to moving to Baltimore city. : In conclusion, allow me to make a suggestion upon one point to which the gentleman from Anne Arundel has not adverted, but which I wish he had alluded to; and it is this I do not profess to be so intimately acquainted with the laws regulating the municipal affairs of Baltimore city as to be able to determine the powers of the City Council. But reasoning from analogy, I do not presume that the City Council have any authority to expend money for outside purposes any more than the local authorities of the counties have. The State has gone to work and at great expense has fitted up a State House, and has rendered it the equal of most such structures in the country, and provided for us here every necessary convenience, with the obvious intent that it should be used for all appropriate State purposes. Our removal will necessitate the abandonment of this building, and involve a large and useless expenditure for accommodations in Baltimore. If we move to Baltimore, is there any gentleman in this Convention that is willing to let the people of Baltimore city be taxed for a necessary State expense to be incurred by our removing there? We, of Prince George's, do not wish to be excused from bearing our share of the burden of taxation for any expenses which this Convention shall think advisable and necessary for the people of this State to defray. If we go there at all, it seems to me that we ought to go there upon the idea that it is necessary, and not because we are invited. In my judgment it would seriously detract from our dignity were we to consent to remove to Baltimore, in the exercise of a doubtful power, merely because the city offers to rid other sections of the State of their share of the just expense to be incurred by the removal. Certainly, if the action of the City Council is unwarranted by law, in taxing the citizens of Baltimore for our benefit, the Constitutional Convention, sitting at the very foundation of all law, ought to be the last body to excuse and abate that action on the part of the City Council. We should protect the tax payers of the city against the generosity of their own Council. Mr. BERRY, of Baltimore county. I would like to ask, in answer to the invitation which has been extended to this Convention by the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, if a hall has been obtained, and if so, where and what hall? Mr. EVANS, (chairman of committee.) A hall has not yet been actually obtained. The hall to which we have directed our attention is Odd Fellows' Hall, situated in Gay street, not very far north of Baltimore street. We have no doubt about getting that, although formal application has not been made. If unexpectedly we should fail there, we could get a ball in the Law Buildings, in which the Superior Court of Baltimore County holds its sessions, which has three rooms attached to it, and which can be fitted up, I understand, quite as well as this room. Or the New Assembly Rooms could be got I suppose; but probably would not be so convenient as either of the others, not being so well supplied with committee rooms. Mr. BERRY, of Baltimore county. I shall oppose the removal of this Convention from the city of Annapolis to any place in the State of Maryland, although I am thankful for the courtesy which has been extended to the Convention by the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore In answer to the question which I put, whether a hall had been obtained, and if so where, and what, I understand the statement to be that none has been obtained. It is expected that Odd Fellows' Hall can be obtained. I wish that my colleague who sits on my left were present today (Mr. Ridgeley;) he would satisfy this Convention that under no circumstances can Odd Fellows' Hall be obtained. There is a standing law which precludes any body excepting those connected with the Odd Fellows from using that hall. My information is from my colleague, who is Grand Secretary in the Grand Lodge of the United States of Odd Fellows. So much for Odd Fellows' Hall. It is In regard to the Law Buildings, it is such a small and poor place that no one attempts to call an assembly there unless driven to it by necessity. It has no conveniences a small concert room. It is not as capable of answering the wants and requirements of this Convention as this beautiful Hall. The Assembly Rooms, the gentleman informs us, may possibly be obtained, but probably not. If the possibility should overcome the probability, it is a most noisy place, and would not suit the Convention. I do not discover, therefore, that the invi. tation which has been extended to us is anything more than, as my friend remarked the other evening, formal. The points which have been attempted to be made by gentlemen on this floor, have been accommodation and convenience, against inconvenience and expense. We yet have no knowledge that we can have any accommodation in Baltimore. We yet have no knowledge that we can have any convenience there. Now what is the inconvenience of this place? A convention of the people assembled here in the year 1850. 1850. I had the honor in 1958 to be a member of the Legislature, with yourself, Mr. President and we assembled in this Hall. It was then just half the size that it now is; and by an act of that Legislature the dimensions of this room were increased to their present size. In 1850, eight years before, the Convention was composed, I believe, of 101 members. The Convention of 1864 is composed of 96 members; five less, and having double the room the former Convention had, and I heard no complaint then about being jammed in the corners, as the gentleman from Washington says. I think there is quite room enough here to accommodate every member of the Convention, and I presume our friends from Washington can be suited, and I hope it will be done. I was not a little amused at an argument advanced by my friend from Howard, (Mr. Sands.) If I have his language correctly, he says that it takes him three days to make a trip of about 60 miles. My county lies adjoining Howard county; and I think the distance from Ellicott's Mills to Baltimore city is 10 or 12 miles; and I think the distance from Baltimore city to Annapolis is 20 miles. I am speaking now of turnpikes. When I was a boy I used to walk four miles an hour; and that would take him exactly ten hours if he had attempted to walk here; and I cannot see, for the soul of me, with the advantages of steam power, how it takes three days to go 60 miles. Mr. SANDS. I will explain, if the gentleman will allow me, how it happens that it takes me three days to make a round trip; for it does take that unless my friend proposes to put me afoot and on the turnpike. railroad or steamboat companies and cannot control their hours. If I am to follow the existing arrangements of steam travel, it amounts to that; and I do not think my friend would be so discourteous as to dismount me from the iron horse. Mr. BERRY of Baltimore county. How far is it from Ellicott's Mills to the Relay House? Mr. SANDS. It is six or eight miles, with no public conveyance at all. I should have to foot that over a very bad road. Mr. BERRY resumed: The difference between my friend and myself is that he is a lawyer and I am a merchant, or have been, and I thought I would take a business view of the thing, and see if he could not possibly come here under three days. I think I have demonstrated successfully that he might walk here in ten hours if he tried. It is his misfortune and not my fault that he has not a vehicle to take him to Baltimore or wherever he pleases; but I know this, that the Legis ature of Maryland at its last session provided $5 a day for members of this Convention; and it was a fair bargain between the Legislature and the parties who offered themselves for election here and were elected, to give their undivided time to the service of the State. Mr. SANDS. I dislike exceedingly to interrupt the gentleman, but I am sure he will pardon me. I am not making this a question of expense at all, for I said in the beginning that I was perfectly willing to keep an accurate account of my expenses and hand the balance over. It is not a question of expense at all. Mr. BERRY of Baltimore county resumed: Mr. MILLER. You can take a carriage. I do not think the Legislature asked the genMr. SANDS. I do not happen to be the tleman to keep an accurate account of his owner of that sort of vehicle. That is my expenses and hand over the balance; but it misfortune. I would say that if my friend did ask of him, and the people of Maryland from Baltimore county proposes to put me demand of him, his entire and undivided foot-back, I would not do that for him. I time, in perfecting, so far as it is possible to can explain to his entire satisfaction why, do so, the organic law of the State to be subwith all the advantages of steam, lightning, mitted to the people. Upon this matter of and everything else, it takes three days for convenience and expense, I have heard of me to make the round trip. There is no another case. It has not been promulged train from Ellicott's Mills connecting with here, but I absolutely heard a gentleman say the early train to Annapolis. If I want to that if he came down here it would cost him take the train to bear me to Annapolis, I$21 a week; that he could not come without must leave my home the evening before, and go to Baltimore city and spend the night there. That is the evening and morning of the first and second day of the round trip. I come here and wish to return. There is no train connecting with the evening train from Annapolis. If I want to go home, I must go to Baltimore city and lie over there another night and take the morning of the third day to complete the round trip. So that really what the gentleman from Howard stated is the actual fact, that when he has occasion to make a round trip it takes him three days, in view of the circumstance that he is neither the President nor a Director of either of the his wife, and if he brought her he would have to pay $21 a week. (Laughter.) Are not these things ridiculous? When they go to the people, I think they will laugh at such an idea. In the day when they come again before the people and are exceedingly anxious to be returned by the people to any office in a body like this, the people will laugh at their calamity. There has been a good deal of play upon the duties of the Sergeant-at-Arins. Mr. President, you know very well that that mace in the hands of the Sergeant-at-Arms is a serious matter. You very well know that if, at a time when a vote is to be taken, it is |