|
|
|
who claimed that they ought to have these rights, but
they did not possess them. There was doubt now as to
our really possessing these rights, although there was no
doubt that we ought to have them.
Mr. Barry read the article from the Bill of Rights of
the State of Massachusetts, and said we should not surely
be behind Massachusetts in asserting the rights which
undeniably belonged to us.
Mr. Jones said this principle was claimed by Massa-
chusetts in 1777, but that State had considerably modi-
fied her views on this subject. There was no community
which had gone further than Massachusetts in maintain-
ing the doctrine of State rights. But the minds of
people had changed very much since that time. The very
foremost advocates of State rights before the war were
names now high in radicalism, and the most violent as-
sailers of the principles for which they had formerly con-
tended. The government at Washington had ignored all
the restrictions of the constitution, and it had been sup-
ported by the people of the North, and recent elections
indicated the same temper. State rights was no longer a
practical issue; it was a mere metaphysical abstraction.
The proposed amendment was further discussed by
Messrs. Jones, Ritchie, Barnes and Hayden.
The question was then taken on the amendment to
strike out the words "ought to, " which was agreed to by
yeas 53, nays 42.
The question was then taken on the amendment to in-
sert at the end of the article the words "as a free, sover-
eign and independent State, " which was adopted by yeas
60, nays 43.
The article as amended now reads as follows:
"Art. 4. That the people of this State have the sole
and exclusive right of regulating the internal government
and police thereof, as a free, sovereign and independent
State. "
The reading of the articles was then proceeded with
down to the 15th article, no amendments being offered.
The 15th article was reached. It is as follows:
"Art. 15. That the levying of taxes by poll is grievous
120
|
|
|
|
 |
