tion in his argument. And the gentleman
from Prince George's who first addressed the
House upon this subject, (Mr. Clarke,) al
though he did not deny the proposition di-
rectly, still went on with a labored argu
ment, bolstered up by numerous authorities
to prove that while the Constitution of the
United States and the laws passed in pursu
ance thereof are the supreme law of the land
it is, in the first place, totally unnecessary to
incorporate this article in the bill of rights;
and that, in the second place, the State of
Maryland in its sovereign capacity is not
bound to give that allegiance to the Constitu-
tion and Government of the United States
which is asserted by this proposition.
Now, sir, I do not rise here to-day for the
purpose of venturing upon any new theory,
or to make any fine-spun argument, to prove
what I conceive to be a self-evident proposi-
tion, a proposition which I consider was
true at the foundation of this Government,
and which existed even before this Govern-
ment was established. Gentlemen upon the
other side tell us that even before the creation
of the Federal Government the States were
sovereign; and contend thereby that the peo-
ple had given to the State governments such
powers of sovereignty as took away even
from the people who created those State gov-
ernments, the sovereignty of the people.
I maintain three propositions. In the first
place, I propose to show, by authority, that
the thirteen original States, that formed the
Constitution of the United States, were not
formed until a union of the people of the dif-
ferent colonies for national purposes bad al-
ready taken place; and not until the national
power bad recommended their establishment.
If I succeed in establishing this proposition,
then it will follow as a natural consequence
that no colony, acting separately for itself,
dissolved its own allegiance to the British
Crown; but that this allegiance was dissolved
by the supreme authority of the people, act-
ing through Congress, elected by the people.
Secondly, I shall next attempt to show that
the Constitution of the United States is not a
compact between the States as sovereignties,
but a fundamental law of the whole people of
the United States, made by the people as
such, and not by the States as separate, inde-
pendent sovereignties.
Thirdly, that the Constitution so made by
the people is supreme and paramount, over-
riding and controlling all local State government;
and that the people of every State of
this Union owe the same paramount obe-
dience and allegiance to the Constitution and
laws of the United States as the people of a
State owe to the laws of their own State,
when in conflict with the laws of any mu-
nicipal corporation, or county, or other local
government. In other words, that the first
and primary law of obedience and of allegiance
of every citizen, is to the General Govern- |
ment of the country; and next to the laws of
this State; and if the laws of the State and
the Government are in conflict, the Govern-
ment is entitled to his allegiance and not the
State.
To sustain the first proposition, it will be
necessary for us to go back to the days when
the thirteen original colonies were in their
infancy. And it is not only instructive, but,
in my opinion, conclusive of the utter fallacy
of this States' rights doctrine, to trace, step
by step, the gradual development and growth
of a small band of men, such as handed at
Plymouth, Jamestown and St. Mary's; first
into provincial, proprietary or charter gov-
ernments; then, when the occasion and the
necessities of the times 'demanded, to mutual
union for protection and defence from the
savages of the Indian tribes: and finally, to
the first. Congress of the united people of the
colonies to consider and resist the wrongs
and outrages inflicted upon them by the
mother country. This may be somewhat te-
dious, perhaps; but still I deem it necessary
in view of what has fallen from the gentleman
from Prince George's, (Mr. Belt,) as lo the
origin and formation of the colonies prior to
the Revolution.
Sir, it is well known to all familiar with
the bistory of our country, that the organi-
zation of the governments of the thirteen col-
onies, were either provincial, proprietary, or
chartered, I do not intend, in connection
with this proposition of history, to make any
historical quotations. If it is denied by gen-
tlemen upon the other side, I have the author-
ities to prove it, but I do not wish to render
myself tedious to this House, by making the
references and reading the extracts from them
now. If they will look back to the history
of the colonies, they will find it to be as I
have asserted. I will, therefore, merely refer
to Curtis' History of the Constitution of the
United States, page 4, where the whole histo-
ry of the colonies, even before the Declaration
of Independence is given, and where is shown
the peculiar characteristics and properties of
these chartered governments. It will be seen
by these authorities that long before the rev-
olution, there had existed local government
and local legislatures, one branch composed
of representatives or delegates, elected di-
rectly by the people, and being in fact the
real organs of the popular will. One of the
principal causes which led to the revolution
was the blow struck at those governments.
I assert that the colonies possessed no power
of forming a union among themselves, with-
out the sanction of the Crown, or of the Par-
liament of Great Britain; and that the pow-
er of forming such an union was one of the
chief powers asserted by the revolution.
And this brings us down to the first Conti-
nental Congress. And here it will be found
that the delegates elected to that Congress
were either elected by the legislatures, acting |
