the General Assembly shall, at their next session, provide by law for calling the same. The Convention shall consist of as many members as both Houses of the General Assembly, who shall be chosen in the same manner, and shall meet within three months after their election for the purpose aforesaid."

And section third provides:

"At the general election to be held in the year 1882, and in each twentieth year thereafter, the question-shall there be a Convention to revise, alter or amend the Constitution?'-shall be submitted to the electors of the State, and in case a majority of all the delegates voting at such election shall decide in favor of a Convention, the General Assembly at its next session, shall provide by law for the election of delegates, and the assembling of such Convention, as is provided in the preceding section; but no amendment of this Constitution, agreed upon by any Convention assembled in pursuance of this article, shall take effect until the same shall have been submitted to the electors of the State, and adopted by a majority of those voting thereon."

That last section provides that the question of calling a Convention shall be submitted to the people in 1882, and not until then. Now, admitting, as many thought who voted for the bill last winter, that the Legislature did not carry out the exact provisions of the Constitution; still the people ratified their action. Now suppose that five years hence, there should be some urgent necessity for a new Constitution; that, as was said here last winter, the people cannot wait until fall to vote upon the question, but must do it at once; there is a clamor which must be obeyed; but you cannot get sufficient members under this second section to vote for the bill; and a majority of the Legislature undertake to pass a law submitting the question, two months after its adjournment, to the people, whether they will have a Convention or not; and the people vote in favor of a Convention. Now that is the very case I want to reach with my amendment. I desire that this Convention shall say to the Legislature: "The article in reference to amendments of the Constitution provides how this Constitution shall be amended; and you shall only pursue the mode prescribed in the Constitution, and not do as you have always heretofore done, call a Convention just as you think proper, independent of constitutional provisions." We do not attempt to reach the power of the people at all. All we do is this: when we come to swear in the Legislature we make them swear to support the Constitution, and this provision which says to them: "You legislators, you members of the Legislature, shall not undertake to provide for the assembling of a Convention, or in any manner alter the Constitution,

except as the power is given you under this Constitution."

·

My own idea is that the Legislature should be unrestricted. I believe we should have better laws, and a more stable Constitution, and less demagoguism in the State, if the people of the State knew that whenever they desired to vote to have a Convention to remodel their organic law they could do so. All the agitation preceding the last reform Convention, and preceding the call of the present Convention, was addressed rather to the restriction upon the exercise of the popular right; was rather calling upon the people to assert their rights, than to any necessity for the Convention. Therefore when you do reach the provision in relation to future amendments, I hope you will give the Legislatare the unrestricted power at any time of submitting the question of a Convention to the vote of the people. I want the people to have the right and the opportunity at any time they choose to remodel their organic law.

Mr. TODD. I would like to ask the gentleman from Prince George's (Mr. Clarke) a question. Is an article in the body of the Constitution any less binding upon the Legislature than an article in the bill of rights? It seems to me that if the Legislature are disposed to override a provision in the body of the Constitution, the same disposition will incline them to disregard a provision in the bill of rights. Hence I see no necessity for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Prince George's, (Mr. Clarke); I see no good that can result from it, for it will not accomplish the object he has in view.

Mr. CLARKE. It was announced upon this floor last winter that although the Constitution_restricted the power of the Legislature in this respect, yet they would submit the question to the vote of the people, and if the people adopted the call for a Convention, that would purge the Legislature from the violation of their oaths.

Mr. STIRLING. Who said that?

Mr. CLARKE. I heard the doctrine asserted here,-I do not now remember by whom,and some member introduced an order, that any member who asserted that doctrine ought to be expelled. The doctrine has been very popular heretofore, that although the Legislature is tied up by this constitutional restriction upon this subject, yet if you submit it to the vote of the people, and they vote for it, that vote has a sort of retroactive effect, it becomes the act of the people from the beginning, and the Legislature is relieved from this obligation and restriction. Now I wish to get rid of all that, and bring home to. the members of the Legislature that they shall, in accordance with their oaths, pursue the mode and manner prescribed in the Constitution. What manner shall be prescribed how the Legislature shall be tied up; or

whether they shall have unlimited power to call Conventions, are questions that may come up hereafter. But whatever mode be adopted, I want the doctrine plainly declared that the members of the Legislature shall stand under the Constitution, and not take shelter under the retroactive operation of a vote of the people.

Mr. DANIEL. There was a similar provision in the old Constitution: that it should not be amended but in a certain way.

Mr. CLARKE. The members of the Legislature acted as revolutionists.

Mr. DANIEL. I believe revolution is a favorite doctrine with the gentleman; not secession, but revolution. The people and the Legislature will again claim the same right of revolution. I would suggest that when the article on amendments to the Constitution comes up for consideration, that is the proper time for the gentleman to offer amendments, if he has any. I do not say I am prepared to vote for the article as reported, nor do I say I shall vote against it. But I think that is the proper time and the proper place for amendments of this kind.

Mr. STIRLING. I shall vote for this amendment, for I think it provides the same guarantee already in the bill of rights, but in a better form. I am perfectly well aware that whether there is or not any power or right in this matter, the thing will be done; and the only way to secure the proper exercise of the power is by imposing restrictions upon the Legislature. I am not afraid of any alteration of the Constitution except through the Legislature. If the people undertake to assemble in primary meetings without any call from the Legislature or the Executive, it will depend entirely upon whether there are enough people in favor of it. I want to provide in the Constitution an easy method of amending the Constitution, and then I want to confine the Legislature to that method. I believe this amendment puts it in a more definite form than the other proposition does; and I shall vote for it.

The question was upon the amendment of Mr. CLARKE, to strike out all of Article 44 after the word "That," and insert:

"The Legislature shall pass no law providing for an alteration, change, or abolishment of this Constitution, except in the manner therein prescribed and directed."

Upon this question Mr. CLARKE called for the yeas and nays, and they were ordered.

The question being taken, by yeas and nays, upon the amendment, it resulted-yeas 40, nays 17-as follows:

Yeas-Messrs. Baker, Barron, Bond, Brown, Clarke, Cunningham, Cushing, Dail, Davis of Washington, Duvall, Ecker, Farrow, Galloway, Greene, Harwood, Henkle, Hodson, Hopkins, Hopper, Horsey, Keefer, Kennard, King, Lansdale, Larsh, Markey, Mitchell, Miller, Morgan, Nyman, Parker, Ridgely,

Schlosser, Scott, Smith of Carroll, Sneary, Stirling, Swope, Wickard, Wooden-40.

Nays-Messrs. Abbott, Daniel, Earle, Hatch, Hebb, Jones of Cecil, Jones of Somerset, Mullikin, Murray, Negley, Noble, Robinette, Russell, Smith of Worcester, Stockbridge, Thomas, Todd-17.

The amendment was accordingly adopted. The question recurred upon the motion of Mr. TODD to strike out the entire section.

Mr. TODD. As it seems to be the sense of this Convention that there shall be an article in the bill of rights upon this subject, I will withdraw the motion to strike out.

The motion to strike out was accordingly withdrawn.

Mr. BARRON moved that when the Convention adjourn to-day, it be to meet on Monday next.

Before the question was taken-
On motion of Mr. CUSHING-
The Convention adjourned.

THIRTIETH DAY.

SATURDAY, June 11, 1864. The Convention met at 10 o'clock, A. M., (Mr. Scott in the chair.)

Prayer by the Rev. Mr. McNemar. The roll was called, and the following members answered to their names :

Messrs. Abbott, Annan, Baker, Brown, Clarke, Cunningham, Cushing, Davis of Washington, Duvall, Ecker, Farrow, Galloway, Greene, Harwood, Hebb, Henkle, Hopkins, Hopper, Horsey, Jones of Cecil, Jones of Somerset, Keefer, King, Larsh, Markey, McComas, Mitchell, Miller, Mullikin, Murray, Negley, Nyman, Parker, Parran, Robinette, Russell, Schlosser, Scott, Smith of Carroll, Smith, of Worcester, Sneary, Stirling, Stockbridge, Swope, Sykes, Thomas, Todd, Valliant, Wickard, Wooden-50.

The journal of yesterday was read and approved.

APPRENTICESHIP OF COLORED MINORS.

Mr. TODD submitted the following:

Ordered, That the Committee on the Judicial Department be instructed to inquire into the expediency of incorporating into the Constitution a provision making it the duty of the Legislature to provide by law for the apprenticeship, by courts of competent jurisdiction, of emancipated negroes, who are minors, so as to better provide for their welfare and preparation for freedom.

Mr. TODD said. I do not deem it necessary to make any speech explaining the object of this order. I suppose as a mere matter of courtesy it will be referred to the appropriate committee.

Mr. STIRLING. I am opposed to that article. In the first place the Judiciary Committee has nothing to do with the subject matter embraced in it. If it should go to any committee, it should go to the Committee on the

Legislative Department. And the gentleman confines the operation of his order to minors. If it is to be confined to minors, such a provision in the Constitution cannot give the Legislature any more power than it now has over that subject. They have all possible power over it now, and the only effect of putting this in the Constitution will be to control the Legislature in a manner that I do not want. I am opposed to put anything in the Constitution which asserts that any such thing is necessary. If it becomes necessary then let the Legislature attend to it.

Mr. TODD. To meet the first objection of the gentleman, I will change the order so that it will go to the Committee on the Legislative Department. I was under the impression when I drew the order that the Committee on the Legislative Department had reported. But I believe I was mistaken in that fact.

I do not see that there is any force in the second objection the gentleman has urged. It is certainly a question whether the Legislature has the power to provide what is indicated in that order. I think it is very desirable that some provision should be hade so as to better prepare those emancipated negroes, who may be minors, for the enjoyment of the freedom which we shall give them.

Mr. ABBOTT. I would suggest to my friend that we better emancipate them first, and then provide for them afterwards.

Mr. TODD. The Legislative Committee may report before we do that, and then it will be too late to refer the subject to them. I think, however, there is no doubt but what we shall pass the 23d article of the bill of rights.

Mr. MILLER The gentleman can obviate that objection by inserting the word "free" in place of the word "emancipated."

Mr. CLARKE. These orders are mere orders of inquiry, and I believe have all been passed and referred to various committees. That being the case I shall vote for this order being referred, It does not commit the Convention to anything, and to not refer it would, I think, be showing a discourtesy to the gentleman from Caroline (Mr. Todd) which we have not shown to other members.

Mr. DANIEL. I hope this discourtesy will not be extended to the gentleman from Caroline, (Mr. Todd,) there having, I believe, been no order of inquiry of any sort offered here that has not been referred to an appropriate committee. We have discussed some orders which we thought were perhaps not proper to be considered by committees; yet as a matter of courtesy, and that we might have all the light possible on all subjects, I believe we have referred every order without exception. I believe this is a very appropriate order, especially after we shall have decided upon emancipation; and I think it is perfectly proper to refer it to a committee. We shall be treating the gentleman from Caroline,

and the order, with discourtesy if we do not refer it. Mr. ABBOTT. Make it "free" instead of "emancipated," and I will vote for it. Mr. TODD. I am not prepared to adopt that suggestion, because we already have laws upon our statute book in relation to that particular class of persons. The point I wish to get at is those who may be freed by the action of this Convention, and of the people of the State.

Mr. STIRLING. I wish to say but one word; and that is, that two-thirds of the members elected on the majority side of this house are pledged against the substantive part of that order, and I am not willing to vote even for an inquiry upon a subject which I am pledged not to advocate.

Mr. DANIEL. I do not understand that anybody of the majority of this house is pledged against any reference. I understand that if we shall adopt the principle of freedom in this Convention then the laws already in existence referring to apprentices will apply unless we provide differently. The laws apply to white apprentices.

Mr. STIRLING. It is not a mere matter of apprenticeship. That order says That order says "as a preparation for freedom.” That contains the germ of the whole question.

Mr. DANIEL. I do not understand that the order commits us to anything; it only calls for information upon the subject. It may be that in addition to the laws now in existence upon the subject of apprenticeship, if we shall free the minors, it may properly be necessary to make some provision to meet the case of those having been slaves, and suddenly turned loose in the community; without increasing-for I would be against thatthe term of apprenticeship, as it is under the present laws. But we do not know what additional legislation may be required in order to make the present laws on the statute book applicable to them, therefore, as a matter of inquiry, I can see no harm to be done by this order. I certainly do not consider myself pledged to provide for this, when I vote for the order.

Mr. TODD. In order to meet the difficulty suggested by the gentleman from Baltimore city, (Mr. Stirling,) I will insert the words, "the enjoyment of," before the word "lib. | erty, so that the amendment will thus read: Ordered, That the Committee on the Legislative Department be instructed to enquire into the expediency of incorporating into the Constitution a provision making it the duty of the Legislature to provide by law for the apprenticeship, by courts of competent jurisdiction, of emancipated negroes, who are minors, so as to better provide for their welfare and preparation for the enjoyment of freedom."

The question was upon the adoption of the order as modified.

Mr. STIRLING called for the ayes and nays, which were ordered.

The question being then taken, by yeas and nays, it resulted-yeas 39, nays 13-as follows:

Yeas-Messrs. Baker, Clarke, Cunningham, Daniel, Farrow, Galloway, Greene, Henkle, Hopkins, Hopper, Horsey, Jones of Cecil, Jones of Somerset, King, Larsh, Markey, McComas, Mitchell, Miller, Morgan, Mullikin, Murray, Negley, Nyman, Parker, Parran, Robinette, Russell, Schlosser, Scott, Smith of Carroll, Smith of Worcester, Sneary, Swope, Sykes, Thomas, Todd, Valliant, Wooden-39. Nays-Messrs. Abbott, Annan, Brown, Cushing, Davis of Washington, Duvall, Ecker, Harwood, Hebb, Keefer, Stirling, Stockbridge, Wickard-13.

Pending the call of the yeas and nays, the following explanations were made by members as their names were called: ·

Mr. ABBOTT. I should be very happy to accommodate my friend from Carroll, (Mr. Todd,) but I cannot vote for this order as it now stands. I therefore vote "no."

Mr. THOMAS. In explanation of my vote, I desire to say that I consider this as a mere question of reference to a proper committee. An order was offered some time ago by my friend from Prince George's, (Mr. Belt,) which the Convention refused to refer to a committee. I vote for the reference of this order, because I do not think it pledges me to any course of action on the subject. I shall consider myself free to vote as I please on the question when it comes up for consideration. Like my colleague, I am pledged to vote against negro apprenticeship, and when the question comes up I shall vote against it. But I vote "aye" on the mere question of reference.

Mr. VALLIANT. The remarks submitted by the gentleman from Baltimore city, (Mr. Thomas,) just now, are an explanation of my vote. I think it is but due courtesy to the gentleman from Caroline, (Mr. Todd,) to refer this order. But in so voting I do not commit myself to any system of negro apprenticeship, and particularly such a system as would carry with it the idea of a continance of slavery in this State.

The order was accordingly referred.

DECLARATION OF RIGHTS.

The CHAIRMAN, (Mr. Scott.) The decision of the President of this Convention was that no additional articles could be offered until the Convention had concluded the second reading of all the articles reported by the Committee.

Mr. JONES, of Somerset. Those articles can be considered as gone through with for the time being.

Mr. HEBB. I would suggest that there is nothing before the Convention, until we have some article before us for consideration.

Mr. CUSHING. I understood yesterday that to-day any amendments to the bill of rights would be allowed to come in.

The CHAIRMAN. That seems rather in conflict with the decision of the President made some days back.

Mr. CUSHING. The Chair has the privilege of revising its own decision.

The CHAIRMAN. I should not like to reverse the decision of the permanent presiding officer of this body. It is within the discretion of the Convention to proceed to consider either the fourth or the twenty-third article.

Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. The Convention can do almost anything by general consent. If no objection is made, the gentleman from Somerset, (Mr. Jones,) can offer an additional article.

The CHAIRMAN. If no objection be made, the proposition of the gentleman from Somerset will be entertained.

Mr. JONES, of Somerset. I move to amend this report of the Committee on the Declaration of Rights, by the addition of the following as article 45:

Article 45. That every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty, and no law shall ever be passed to curtail, abridge or restrain the liberty of speech or of the press.”

.

The Convention then resumed the consideration of the order of the day, being the port of the Committee on the Declaration of Rights, which was on its second reading.

Mr. JONES, of Somerset. I believe we have passed through all the articles of the bill of rights, as reported by the committee, with the exception of the fourth and twenty-third articles; and I presume it is not intended, with so thin a house as this, to proceed with the consideration of those articles at the present time. I desire, therefore, to offer an additional article.