nothing less, for they evidently desired by this action to strengthen the hands of the President and put Maryland in the position of officially endorsing his administration." This political consideration should not be forgotten, especially as the contemporary excitement incident to Mr. Lincoln's candidacy for a second term may have influenced the Convention. The result was, that Mr. Clarke's amendment was voted down, and also several others by means of which the minority attempted to mitigate the force of the article," and this latter was finally adopted on June 16 by the party vote of 53 to 32. 93 The third in importance and last of the new articles incorporated in the "Declaration of Rights" was that introduced by Mr. Abbott of Baltimore City on June 11, and adopted without debate on July 7, after a slight change of phraseology." It declared-" That we hold it to be selfevident that all men are created equally free; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, the enjoyment of the proceeds of their own labor and the pursuit of happiness." It was merely a broad statement of the principle involved in the article abolishing slavery. Another very interesting change was that made in Article 2, which declares the " unalienable right" of the people to "alter, reform or abolish" the form of government which originates from them. The words contained in the old Constitution of 1850-1" which limited this popular right to the "mode prescribed" in that document were omitted. This action was not taken on strict party lines, for although nearly all the members opposing it were of the minority, yet a number of them rose above the rigid 91 See Proc., 209, for an order introduced by Mr. Hatch, of Baltimore City, with this special end in view. 3 Proc., 204. (Article 5 in the Constitution.) constructionism so prevalent among the members of this last-named faction, and voted in the affirmative." The change was evidently the direct result of an argument which had been most skilfully used against calling a Convention during the campaign of the preceding spring," and was based not only on the above-mentioned clause of the "Declaration of Rights" of the old Constitution, but on Article II of that instrument which provided that "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 the calling a Convention for altering the Constitution." As we know, the Legislature of 1861-2 had failed to do this," hence it was held by some that the succeeding body of 1864 had exceeded its authority in framing the Convention Bill, and that the Bill was unconstitutional. The advocates of the measure had at once answered the argument by taking their stand on the absolute sovereignty of the people, and their right of revolution as a last resort, urging that the acceptance of the Convention Bill at the election was sufficient to make it the supreme law of the land. This was the line of argument followed during the debate on the revision question in the Convention, it being stated in addition that it might with equal ease be proved that the Constitutional Convention of 1850-1 had been revolutionary, as it had not been called according to the provisions of the Constitution of 1776." The other facts of importance which should be mentioned in connection with the "Declaration of Rights" as adopted are, first of all, that Article 7 still confined the right of suffrage to the free white male citizens. Again, the general sentiment of the Convention was without re Proc., 90, 94-6; Deb., i, 133-46, 149-60. 07 Deb., i, 134, 390. 93 See page 13. 99 Deb., i, 140-1, 150-5. 101 102 1001 gard to political lines, largely opposed to any poll-tax," so the prohibitory clause was retained in Article 15 with a slight change of phraseology. Article 22 limited the declaration against compulsory evidence to criminal cases thereafter, in order to conform to the laws as it stood in the Code, by which any party might in any civil case be compelled in a Court of Common Law, as well as in Equity, to give evidence against himself. Article 27 was changed to allow forfeiture of estate for treason, a thing heretofore not allowed in Maryland for any cause.' The minority of course opposed this change, Mr. Chambers in particular leading in the debate against it, the ground taken being that it would be an inhuman and unjust treatment of the innocent wife and children of a man convicted. Mr. Clarke made an effort to amend the article by having the forfeiture of estate only continue during the life of the person convicted, but was unsuccessful, as the majority could not leave open this chance for future questioning of the various confiscations of "rebel" property. Article 31 changed the phraseology in regard to quartering soldiers in time of war, by providing that the manner should be "prescribed by law," thus corresponding literally with the third amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The words formerly used had been "as the Legislature may direct." The requirement of a test oath of allegiance both to Maryland and the United States, was inserted in Article 37, which treated of the tests or qualifications required for office. The minority opposed this. An additional change was made in the same article by omitting the word "Jews" and allowing all persons, with 104 103 100 Deb., i, 168-80, 190-201, 217-20. Mr. Jones, of Somerset, favored an income tax (Deb., i, 188-9). 101 Proc., 106-8, 110-4, 123-5. 102 Article 24 in Constitution of 1850-1. 103 Proc., 131, 138-41; Deb., i, 239-47, 249-70. 10 Proc., 158-9; Deb., i, 356-60 (observe the different numbering of the articles in the report of the committee, etc.). 106 out distinction to make a declaration of belief either in the Christian religion, or in the existence of God, and in a future state of rewards and punishments.10 Article 40 added to the provision for the liberty of the press a clause making a person responsible for the abuse of this right." Article 43 declared the encouragement of a judicious system of general education to be among the duties of the Legislature, and Article 45 prohibited only the Legislature from altering the Constitution except in the manner prescribed or directed. This left to the people the inalienable right of changing their form of government and thus conformed to Article 2, as modified in the manner stated above. 107 To sum up, it should be said that the changes in the "Declaration of Rights," as given above, show first a decided movement toward an increase in the civil liberty of the individual by the abolition of slavery, the vesting of final sovereignty in the people, and the broadening of the religious test in an oath or affirmation. Secondly, there was a somewhat counter tendency toward strong centralization of power in the National Government, and also an entire submission to and approval of the war policy of President Lincoln. The Constitution itself, in establishing a form of government for the State of Maryland as contrasted with the previous document of 1850-1, shows a number of interesting changes, which were in part the immediate results of the Civil War, and in part caused by a growing spirit of progress in the state, which was at times reflected in the Convention, where provisions were suggested which would have been years in advance of the average opinion of the people. In considering these various changes the order of 105 Proc., 165-6; Deb., i, 371-82. 106 Proc., 167-9, 172-3; Deb., i, 393-400 (articles "39" and "45" [46] combined into Article "40"-Proc., 434). 107 See pp. 62-63. the Constitution will be followed in part, and in part a grouping by subjects.' 108 109 Article 1, on the Elective Franchise, largely followed the plan of the corresponding article in the preceding Constitution. It also contained one of the best of the new provisions, that requiring the General Assembly to provide for an uniform registration of the names of the voters of the state, a thing as yet unknown in Maryland. This registration was made the evidence of the qualification of citizens to vote at all elections. In relation to bribery, section 5 of the same article added to the former prohibitive provision a clause disfranchising a person guilty of fraud in procuring for himself or any other person a nomination for any office. This was the result of a motion by Mr. Stockbridge, who desired to incorporate in addition the application of this provision to primary meetings and nominating conventions, an advanced reform movement only beginning to be considered at the present day. The Convention voted it down as impracticable." 111 110 The oaths of allegiance for voters and public officials as contained in this article were perhaps the most unpopular feature of the Constitution, and did more to cause its reluctant acceptance by the state and its final abrogation in 1867 than any other one thing in connection with it. They were of course the direct outcome of the war and only applicable to the conditions arising at that time. General Schenck's much-discussed order governing the elections of 1863, the various invasions and raids into 108 The entire new Constitution, as adopted, may be found in Proc., 721-70. 10 Proc., 434, 513, 686; Deb., iii, 1784. This provision was carried out by the Legislature of 1865. See Steiner, Citizenship and Suffrage in Maryland," pp. 47-8. 110 66 Proc., 510-1; Deb., ii, 1381-3. Mr. Miller had desired to make voting compulsory by an article in the "Declaration of Rights," Proc., III-2. year. The present Constitution of Maryland was formed in that |