Maryland State Archives

The Constitution referred to in the Red Book that we discussed, see entry:

[1776 Convention of Maryland. Nov.8] Text of the Constitution of Maryland; to introduce the new government an election is to be held for Electors of the Senate on November 25 and the Electors chosen are to meet on December 9; the elections for Delegates and for Sheriffs are to be held December 8 in same manner as before; the General Assembly is to meet February 10, 1777 and elect the Governor and Council; elections in the counties are to be held in the courthouses except in Washington County at Hagerstown, in Montgomery County at the house of Charles Hungerford, in Cecil County at the Head of Elk, and in Queen Anne's at the house of George Hanson; the Judges of elections are to be as follows: St. Mary's: Abraham Barnes, Hugh Hopewell, Henry Tubman; Charles: George Dent, Samuel Hanson, Warren Dent; Calvert: William Allnut, Samuel Chew, Daniel Rawlings; Prince George's: William Beanes, Enoch Magruder, Jeremiah Magruder; Anne Arundel: Joseph Galloway, Thomas Dorsey, Thomas Watkins; Montgomery: John Murdock, Zadock Magruder, Joseph Wilson; Frederick: William Luckett, Jr., John Adlum, Joseph Wells; Washington: Joseph Smith, Noah Hart, Ely Williams; Baltimore: Thomas Gist, Sr., Edward Cockey, Henry Stevenson, Jr.; Harford: Amos Garret, William Webb, Thomas Johnson; Cecil: James Evans, Thomas May, John Stockton; Kent: John Page, William Rogers, William Bordley; Queen Anne's: Thomas Ringgold, Nathaniel Wright, Samuel Thomson; Talbot: John Goldsborough, William Perry, John Bracco; Dorchester: Henry Hooper, Bartholomew Ennalls, James Muir; Caroline: Henry Casson, Foster Goldsborough, John White; Somerset: Thomas Hayward, Andrew Francis Cheney, Thomas Bruff; Worcester: Joshua Mitchell, Benton Harris, Robert Done; City of Annapolis: Mayor, Recorder and Alderman; Baltimore Town: John Merryman, Jr., James Calhoun, Benjamin Griffin; Council of Safety to be elected to govern Province until Assembly meets. Df.D. 51 pp. Numerous emendations. Printed in Convention Proc, 348, 349-365.

is

MARYLAND STATE PAPERS
(Red Books)
MSA S989
Dates: 1775-1776
Description: 2, Nos. 1-60
Accession No.: 4558
MSA No.: S989-2
Location: 1/6/3/35
II, 32

It is volume 2, item 32. We did look at this before, and discounted it as a final draft, as it is referred to in the Guide under the record that we did provide to Mr. Dippel. The citation for the record that we did provide him is:

CONVENTION OF MARYLAND
(Constitution of 1776)
MSA S67
Dates: 1776
Description: Final Draft, Articles 1-6 missing. For an earlier draft, see MARYLAND STATE PAPERS (Red Book) II, No. 32 in S989.
Accession No.: 6631
MSA No.: S67-1
Location: 1/1/4/41

As for the Declaration of Rights, the following is still in the Red Book which seems to be the final draft:

[1776 [Convention of Maryland.]
Nov. 3] Text of the Declaration of Rights.
D. Signed by Matthew Tilghman, President.
Printed in Convention Proc, 311-316.
17 pp.
310
II,47

The following was provided to Dr. Dippel, which had already been scanned and was received from APC and SPECCOL as the copy of the Declaration that had been framed for exhibit:

[Before [Convention of Maryland.] 1776 Preliminary text of the Declaration of Rights. Nov. 3] DfX). 14 pp. Numerous emendations. Printed in part in Convention Proc, 296-300. II, 33A
Citation:
MARYLAND STATE PAPERS
(Red Books)
MSA S989
Dates: 1775-1776
Description: 2, Nos. 1-60
Accession No.: 4558
MSA No.: S989-2-3, Maryland Declaration of Rights

I did a search, and found the following work orders related to this work, which include uploaded email correspondence that I was copied on in ADD NOTES:
MSAREF MSASC 5458
51-1848 (scanning of 1851 and 1776 Constitutions, and correspondence with Dippel)
51-38 (correspondence with Dippel)
51-37 (correspondence with Dippel)
51-22 (correspondence with Dippel)
48-456 (Conservation of Constitutions)
51-1186 (scanning of the Declaration of Rights)
48-310 (Conservation of the Declaration of Rights)

The series in ECPCLIO related to Ryan and Karen's work on Constitutional Amendments is Series 89, this also lists the work that Greg Lepore did with Dan Friedman. Jen's incidental work with Dan is recorded in MSAREF. See: 51-67, 51-622, 48-141, 14-425, 14-796

I will burn an additional CD for you of what was provided to Dr. Dippel and place it in your box. This email text will be uploaded as notestext.rtf for your review. The index file will reflect what was actually sent to Dr. Dippel for your information.

I will place a color scanning order for the 2 additional documents that we discussed. It is at:

51-2385

I have delivered the documents and work order to On Demand.
Emily

Also, we must have a film of the proceedings of the Convention (not currently in AOMOL.NET) printed by Frederick Green in 1776, that was owned by Samuel Green and used for the 1830s volume. The original, according to the library stamp on the copy I have, is in the State Law Library. Please borrow it and have it scanned in color by Jill.

I will send you and Jen a pdf of the copyflow copy I have, made ca. 1975, from the film, when I am finished scanning it this afternoon.

A copy needs to be sent to Horst as it is in fact the officially retained copy of the authoritative printed version. If in fact the first six articles of the manuscript version of the final version of the 1776 Constitution are indeed missing, then this copy constitutes the contemporary record of the decisions of the Convention, qualified by any amendment/discussion fragments that may appear in the red book series, etc.

I would like it added to the copies referenced and accessible in the Early State Records section of the Archives of Maryland.

Ed

Ed,
The Red Book is already in On Demand with a work order for scanning the Constitution and the Declaration (MSAREF 51-2385) in color on the book scanner.

I will make cross references to the work that I outlined in my last email in the new ecpclio series.

I believe I found the film of the proceedings that you reference below by Frederick Green is in the Early States Records series of AOMOL at:

http://aomol.msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc4800/sc4872/003145/html/m3145-0037.html

I will have Christine contact the law library about borrowing the original and having Jill scan it in color.

Emily

For your review, regarding all the emails from Mr. Dippel, I have tried to make a list of what he has asked for beginning with email of 2/27/06 and what has been found/where things stand to date:

On 2/15, forwarded to me on 2/27, he asks for:

MSS Copy of 1776 Constitution -MSS Final Draft is noted for MSA S67, but articles 1-6 are missing. Have contacted Pat, and the pages have been missing since she has been here. Need decision from you about what to provide. MSA does have earlier drafts, but no full copy of the final. [MARYLAND STATE PAPERS (Red Book) I, no. 32, MSA S989; MSA S 67-2] Not been put in for scanning at this point.

MSS Declaration of Rights -Was scanned by Chris K. in 2005, images are uploaded to MSAREF 51-1186

MSS Copy of 1851 Constitution -Conservation work order MSAREF 48-456, MSA S972-1 is in conservation lab for encapsulation and will be scanned by Jill. They have had it since 2/27, but I have asked them to expedite now that their work on the Sanborn Atlas is finished.

On 3/1, he asks for:

Baltimore Prints of 1851 Constitution
-Two have been scanned and OCRed by Jill with CDs given to you MSAREF 51-1887
MSAREF 51-1888

MSS Copy of 1792 Proposed Constitution
-We do not have a copy of this, please see Karen Hare's notes can be found in ECPCLIO at 89-12 -The one law that Gabriel Duvall introduces that was heard should be found at: GENERAL ASSEMBLY (Laws, Original) 1791 MSA S966-42 Chapter 80 0/68/6/42 Not been put in for scanning at this point.

On 3/24, he asks for:

1818 Law of Maryland Found in AOMOL: http://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000637/html/am637--46.html 1818, Chapter 87 I am unclear about whether he needs a MSS version, if so, it should be at: GENERAL ASSEMBLY (Laws, Original) 1818 S966-140 Chapter 87 2/12/3/19 Not been put in for scanning at this point.

1792 Proposed Constitution in Printed Form PDFs of the MHS Copy and the Huntington Library copies are uploaded to ECPCLIO 89-16.

These are all the clear cut requests that I have been able to pull out of your correspondence with Mr. Dippel. If I have missed something, please let me know. Let me know how you would like to proceed, particularly with what 1776 Constitution you want to supply, and I will put that in for scanning right away. Emily

At 06:09 AM 3/27/2006, you wrote: We need to talk about this on Wednesday, if possible.

Ed

Horst

Emily Oland Squires schrieb:

Dear Mr. Dippel,

Dr. Papenfuse asked me to contact you directly. I believe the 1834 law you are interested in can be found on the Archives of Maryland Online. Please see the following link for Chapter 166 of the 1834 Maryland Session Laws.

http://aomol.msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000541/html/am541--175.html

Is this what you are looking for, or did you require a manuscript copy? Sincerely,

Emily Oland Squires

Maryland State Archives

Dear Ed:

As there are some server problems in the university, I am unaware of any incoming mail. I just realized that we both overlooked an adopted amendment of the December session of 1834, ch. 166 ("An act to alter and change a part of the division line between the second, third, and fourth election districts in Washington county"). The reason is obvious: I did not realize that it changed the constitution, and indeed, it is hard to see how it may have done so. But it was treated as an amendment and there is the ratification of the amendment in the December session of 1835, ch. 17. I shall very much appreciate if you can send send me a copy or scan of 1834, ch. 166 (not of the confirmation act of 1835, which I have) at your earliest convenience.

Horst

Edward Papenfuse wrote:

Dear Horst:

If I have not put you in contact with Dan before this, I should have.

Dan is the authority on Maryland's Constitution and you should be in correspondence with each other.

I will do what I can to sort out the amendments for you over the next couple of weeks, but Dan can be most helpful as well (I have cc'd him on this).

I thought you might like to see his most recent piece in the Daily Record on removal of judges.

As to failed amendments, because the constitution required two legislatures to pass proposed constitutional amendments, failed amendments are not easy to search out and document (as you know). We are attempting to put all proceedings of the Legislature on line, beginning with those sessions that addressed constitutional issues. Unfortunately until just recently we have not had the resources to index well all the work we have done to date. Hopefully that will be rectified soon with the addition of a specialize Google search engine for our site which encompasses the Archives of Maryland series.

Ed

---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: "Friedman, Dan"

Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 21:50:19 -0500

That's funny. I had registered for a Bench and Bar breakfast on Monday morning featuring Judge Murdock talking about the Courthouse art collection. Then on Thursday, I got a notice announcing that she had changed topic to the far more newsworthy, "Judicial Independence." I am still going and I hope that she'll have read my article. But I am a little sad to be mising the art collection discussion. I'm glad she's getting some use out of it! (That's sounded like I was hinting around for an invite, but that was not my intention--I will be at the O'Malley fundraiser on Tuesday. But I hope the Barrister's Club goes well and that on some other occassion I can hear about courthouse art!). Dan.

-----Original Message----- From: Edward C. Papenfuse [mailto:edp@mdsa.net] Sent: Fri 3/24/2006 5:42 PM To: Friedman, Dan Cc: Subject: Re: Daily Record Article

Bravo.

I will be at the Barrister's Club on Tuesday with Judge Murdock talking about the art collection in the Court House. I know how much she will appreciate what you wrote.

Ed

At 02:51 PM 3/24/2006, you wrote:

I thought you might enjoy this article. _____

[]

[]

State constitution does provide standards for removal of judges

March 24, 2006 By DAN FRIEDMAN, Special to The Daily Record [] I’m afraid my book publisher won’t like this. It turns out that there is an error in my new opus on the Maryland state constitution. Here it is: In describing the judicial removal provisions, I noted my approval of the modern judicial disabilities process created by Art. IV, §4B and opined that it was “unlikely that future judicial discipline and removal will take place pursuant to” the three archaic procedures found in Art. IV, §4. Not four months after publication of that statement, here comes Del. Don Dwyer, Jr., R.-Anne Arundel, proposing the removal of Judge M. Brooke Murdock of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. And Del. Dwyer wants to use the “outmoded” procedures that I wrote would never be used again. Turns out Del. Dwyer prefers to try to remove Judge Murdock through one of the “old fashioned” methods of Art. IV, §4 because he believes that there are no standards governing such a removal. Thus, the delegate reasoned, Judge Murdock could be removed because he disagreed with a decision rendered by the judge, specifically, her decision in Deane v. Conaway, that the state law prohibiting gay marriage was unconstitutional. The House Judiciary Committee wasted little time in rejecting Del. Dwyer’s proposed address. My continuing interest is in Del. Dwyer’s claim (reported in another newspaper) that there are no constitutional standards to guide the legislature’s decision under Art. IV, §4. Any claim that there are “no standards” carries a strong whiff of the totalitarian for me. I think Del. Dwyer’s analysis is wrong, both as a matter of constitutional interpretation and of public policy, but it takes a moment to explain. His reasoning begins (and ends) with the text of Art. IV, §4, which provides: Any Judge shall be removed from office by the Governor, on conviction in a Court of Law, of incompetency, of wilful neglect of duty, misbehavior in office, or any other crime, or on impeachment, according to this Constitution, or the Laws of the State; or on the address of the General Assembly, two thirds of each House concurring in such address, and the accused having been notified of the charges against him, and having had opportunity of making his defence. The provision is not artful but describes three separate methods for removing a sitting judge: (1) conviction by a court; (2) impeachment in accordance with the procedure laid out in Art. III, §26; and (3) on address in the General Assembly. (The judicial disabilities process described in Art. IV, §4B provides a fourth method of removing a judge, by which an independent commission investigates charges and recommends judicial discipline to the Court of Appeals). It is worthwhile noting the differences between the three procedures described in Art. IV, §4. Conviction in court seems relatively straight forward. Impeachment requires a constitutional majority of the House of Delegates (71 Delegates) to approve articles of impeachment, followed by trial in the state Senate, and requires a vote of 32 Senators to convict. Removal “on address” presents a more streamlined process — a judge must be given notice of the charges and an opportunity to present a defense before a vote is taken — but requires a vote of 2/3 of both houses to convict. Returning to the central point, however, Del. Dwyer’s position, I take it, is that the standard for removal set forth in Art. IV, §4 (“incompetency, of wilful neglect of duty, misbehavior in office, or any other crime”), because of the order in which it is recited, only applies to the first procedure, not the second or third. Alternatively, he may be making the plausible argument based on the punctuation of Art. IV, §4 that this standard applies to the procedures described before the semi-colon, i.e., conviction in court or impeachment, but not “on address.” If a judge is to be removed on address, Del. Dwyer would argue, there is no applicable standard. Flat prohibition Finding the correct standard for judicial removal, however, requires us to look beyond Art. IV, §4. Instead, we must begin with Article 33 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, which provides: “That the independency and uprightness of Judges are essential to the impartial administration of Justice, and a great security to the rights and liberties of the People: Wherefore, the Judges shall not be removed, except in the manner, and for the causes provided in this Constitution.” Article 33 acts as the interpretive guide for the constitutional provisions governing judicial removal. It flatly prohibits removal of a judge for any cause other than those provided by the Constitution. Moreover, Art. IV, §4 doesn’t exist in a vacuum, but for the express purpose of protecting the “independency and uprightness” of our judges. Our constitutional framers weren’t trying to develop novel forms of judicial removal; they were trying to limit the existing ones. Remember, one of the key colonial grievances leading to the American Revolution was that the King of England refused to allow colonial judges to retain their offices on good behavior (thus insulated from political pressures), but instead he could remove them at his whim. Article 33 was designed to prevent this abuse. Therefore, there is no such thing as a standard-less removal of a Maryland judge. There are two other provisions of the Declaration of Rights that help inform lawmakers considering the removal of a judge. First, Art. 6 reminds us “[t]hat all persons invested with the Legislative or Executive powers of Government are the Trustees of the Public, and, as such, accountable for their conduct.” The Maryland framers described a legislator’s role by reference to the well-understood legal role of a trustee (who must act for the long-term benefit of the trust) rather than as a servant (who is required to obey each passing whim of the master). My view is that this provision should counsel toward the long view of protecting judicial independence not sacrificing it in a disagreement with one judge on the outcome of one case. Second, Art. 8, which describes the separation of powers principle, provides a helpful backdrop for evaluating standards of judicial removal. It provides “[t]hat the Legislative, Executive and Judicial powers of Government ought to be forever separate and distinct from each other; and no person exercising the functions of one of said Departments shall assume or discharge the duties of any other.” Under this principle, legislators must be cautious in interfering with the operations of a coordinate branch of government. To be fair, Del. Dwyer’s Web site describes his involvement in the Deane v. Conaway case as motivated, in part, as a defense of the separation of powers. His conception of the separation of powers, however, is a level removed at best and ignores the primary separation of powers analysis that the courts, through the power of judicial review, serve as a check on the unconstitutional acts of the legislature. Whatever one thinks of Judge Murdock’s decision, there can be no doubt that it follows this traditional model. By contrast, Del. Dwyer’s conception of the separation of powers, in which we impeach judges because we disagree with their rulings, seems to have gone out of fashion after the U.S. Senate refused to impeach Justice Samuel Chase of Maryland in 1805. When all the relevant constitutional provisions are read in harmony, it is clear that a judge may only be removed under Art. IV, §4 for “incompetency … wilful neglect of duty, misbehavior in office, or any other crime.” Moreover, the General Assembly must be cautious in removing a judge to ensure that its motives are not to attack the “independency” of judges or intrude on the judiciary’s core function: Judging cases. Read correctly, the standards for removal under Art. IV, §4 are arguably more limited than those provided under Art. IV, §4B (“misconduct while in office, or of persistent failure to perform the duties of the office, or of conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice”). Given Art. IV, §4’s narrower standard, obvious procedural disadvantages, and inability to provide a graduated, humane outcome, Art. IV, §4B must be the preferred method of judicial discipline and removal. That should leave Art. IV, §4, as I said in my book, moribund. It will only be used by those, like Del. Dwyer, who use its provisions for political grandstanding. _____

Dan Friedman is an attorney with Saul Ewing LLP in Baltimore. His book, The Maryland State Constitution: A Reference Guide, was published by Greenwood Press in November.

[]

Thank you so much. Lee was kind enough to send us a pdf of the 1851 constitution from the separate Annapolis print. As it appears, no printer was commissioned for the separate prints and the convention printer did not issue separate prints, a somewhat uncommon decision, though the same happened 1851 in Indiana. Do you hold also one or both separate Baltimore prints of 1851, or any other if they exist?

I forgot, of course, to inquire whether you also hold the original manuscript of the 1792 failed constitution, which we shall also publish. If you hold the manuscript, as I hope you do, I shall appreciate if you can send us a copy.

Thanks a lot, as always.

Horst Ed Papenfuse wrote: I meant to send you another citation about another comma, if you have not seen it: http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Union/3405/ecp-6-494/comma.html Ed

this is not the comma footnote I was referring to however. The comma footnote is in an opinion of the Attorney General's office that opines that Judges can receive compensation for teaching because of the intent of the Constitutional Convention of 1851 despite, as I remember it, the lack of a comma in the printed version of the constitution. At some point we should try to track down the opinion. I think it was written by Avery Eisenstark, the current head of Baltimore's Legislative Reference.

Ed

At 08:34 AM 2/27/2006, you wrote:

Ed,

Your speech is located at:

http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Union/3405/ecp-6-494/comma.html

Emily

Dear Horst:

I am glad to hear all is going so well. I have been so absorbed here in raising money for the Archives that I have not had much time to spend on our mutual interest in constitutions and the process by which they have evolved. A good friend, Dan Friedman, has just published his commentary on our present constitution which I think you would enjoy:

http://www.greenwood.com/books/printFlyer.aspx?sku=GR2044

The original manuscripts of the Declaration of Rights and Constitution of 1776 as well as the that of the Constitution of 1851 still exist. With regard to the latter, I am a very popular footnote to an opinion that judges can receive compensation for teaching, based upon my analysis of the intended placement of a comma in the Constitution of 1851. I will try to dig it out and send it on to you.

By this I am asking our research division to place orders for the scanning of the originals. We will place them on our site in the Museum on Line linked to our Archives of Maryland web site.

All the best to all of you in Kassel

Ed

PS to Jen and Emily:

Please create an msaref workorder for this and follow through accordingly. Because of the number of drafts of the Declaration of Rights, etc. in the State Papers, carefully compare the mss copy you upload with the authoritative version on line in aomol.net.

Thanks

Ed

At 08:17 AM 2/15/2006, you wrote:

Dear Ed:

For a long time, we have not heard from each other, and I hope you are around and well.

We definitely moved on since our conference in October 2002. Our website at www.modern-constitutions.de is growing and will appear under a new design and be more comfortable in a few days. Our first two volumes have been published last year, and by the turn of the month our first volume (of seven) of German constitutions will apear as well as "Constitutional Documents of the United States of America, 1776-1860, Pt. I: National and State Constitutions (Alabama - Frankland)". Just a few weeks later our volume on Chile is scheduled to be published.

Presently, I still hope to finish the manuscript of the second U.S. volume (Georgia - Kansas)in about two weeks, and to start working on the third volume (of seven), containing the constitutions of Kentucky through Maryland, in March. For Maryland we definitely will make use of your website, and we shall add all the failed constitutions, some thirty. What we still need, however, are copies of the original manuscripts - hopefully they exist - of the Declaration of Rights and Constitution of 1776 and of the Constitution of 1851. Copies of any original official editions other than the one you used for digitizing (normally separate print/prints, convention journal).

Most certainly, any help and advice will be highly appreciated.

Best regards - from all of us in Kassel -,

Horst

---------------------------- Prof. Dr. Horst Dippel
Professor of British and North American History
Research Group "Modern Constitutionalism"
Fachbereich 05 Gesellschaftswissenschaften --
Department of Social Sciences
University of Kassel
D-34109 Kassel
Germany
Phone: +49 ([0]561) 804-3350/3347
Fax: +49 ([0]561) 804-7016
E-Mail: hdippel@uni-kassel.de
www.modern-constitutions.de

While working through the Maryland amendments which are really killing me, I came across Laws of Maryland, 1817, ch. 51: "An act relating to Election Districts in the City of Baltimore", which is on your website. Without referring to the fact that the act alters the constitution, I failed to get hold of it when digging my way through the Laws of Maryland. Therefore, I am unaware whether the Laws of Maryland, 1818, contain "An act to confirm an act relating to Elections Districts in the City of Baltimore". If not, I have to classify the act as "Failed Amendment". If yes, it will be an adopted amendment, but in this case, I shall need a copy of the act of 1818 confirming. Can you check and reply? Thanks a lot.

Best regards, Horst

Chapter 18, Laws of 1818

If I have not put you in contact with Dan before this, I should have.

Dan is the authority on Maryland's Constitution and you should be in correspondence with each other.

I will do what I can to sort out the amendments for you over the next couple of weeks, but Dan can be most helpful as well (I have cc'd him on this).

I thought you might like to see his most recent piece in the Daily Record on removal of judges.

As to failed amendments, because the constitution required two legislatures to pass proposed constitutional amendments, failed amendments are not easy to search out and document (as you know). We are attempting to put all proceedings of the Legislature on line, beginning with those sessions that addressed constitutional issues. Unfortunately until just recently we have not had the resources to index well all the work we have done to date. Hopefully that will be rectified soon with the addition of a specialize Google search engine for our site which encompasses the Archives of Maryland series.

Ed

Dear Ed:

Thank you so much. I shall be very happy to get in touch with Dan. Indeed, my idea is, if I may, to send him my editions when ready, and it should be great if Dan can look through them and correct me where I shall be wrong, or add if he shall find anything missing.

Ideally, I shall be through with them tomorrow evening, but I have still to deal with the years 1831-1851, for which you list 23 adoped amendments, plus those which failed. Regarding that, so far, I managed to get done only ten amendments, today, I may need more time for the rest. In this case, I shall send onn Tuesday what I have, and the rest will follow later, as I have to finish our second volume with the last two Kansas constitutions (Lecompton and Leavenworth), as the Kansas State Historical Society only managed to put the handwritten originals last week on their website.

After that, my schedule is to get volume 3, containing Maryland, ready until the end of May, otherwise it will not be before the end of July.

I shall appreciate to obtain your manuscripts of the Maryland constitutions as soon as may be.

Best, Horst

Date received 11/11/1997, Date answered 12/03/1997
Request for contribution to the Constitution project
98-3898

98-4493