illustrative of his position, and as descriptive of
mine, he speaks of the gentleman from Frederick,
(Mr. Thomas,) as my illustrious colleague, and
reverberated the idea of "pride of opinion," "along
side of Philip Barton Key." With regard to my
allusion to Mr, Key, I have first to say, if I had
the ambition to put myself in the ranks of great
lawyers and great men, it would be gratified to
its utmost measure by getting upon that elevated
platform which Mr. Key had by common consent
occupied. I referred more largely to Mr. Key's
argument, not because there were not expressions
in the arguments of other distinguished members
quite as strong as those of Mr. Key, and not alone
because his argument was more able and conclu-
sive than others, but also because he was known
to every body here, known from a personal inter-
course with him bysome, and known to others by
the reputation he had justly acquired, and which
was still cherished amongst the profession which
Ire adorned. I need not say "the profession," for
his character and standing were known to all.—
But the gentleman says he acted in self defence.
Well, the question is a simple, unmixed question
of law—of Constitutional law. If the Constitution
of the United States forbids the exercise of
the power we are now asked to exercise, we are
bound to refrain. It is the supreme law of this
land over-riding our own Constitution and laws,
and we have all of us on some occasions, and
many of us on numerous occasions, solemnly ap-
pealed to the Searcher of hearts to witness our
deliberate purpose to obey and respect it. Now,
sir, I am at a loss to comprehend how, in a ques-
tion whether we shall incorporate in the Consti-
tution a provision contrary to the Constitution of
the United States, any principle of self-defence is
involved. Is an aggression upon the supreme
law to be regarded in any way as self-defence ?
I believe the provision utterly at variance with
that law to which I have sworn allegiance; can I
violate that oath, and burden my conscience with
the deep stain of false swearing, because that gentleman
or any other chooses to think it desirable
for some supposed political advantage? What is
the plain English of such an argument? Is it not
this: here is a project suggested to secure a polit-
ical advantage, but it is directly opposed to the
Constitution of the United States, and we are
solemnly bound by our oaths to support that Constitution
, yet, in despite of this, we trust sustain
the proposition? Sir, as an Eastern Shore man,
I go for no claim—I want to have none preferred
I which cannot be sustained without a violation of
I both constitutional and moral law. I say the argument
does amount to this, because the moment
the question of constitutional power is abandoned
as untenable, and reliance is had upon any notions
I of expediency, it concedes the violation of the
Constitution, and. of necessity, the violation of
the oath. And, forsooth, for not doing this, my
devotion to my country is to be impeached? Sir,
no man on this floor can say with truth, that I
have been recreant to the just claims of my Shore.
While I have a heart to feel and a voice to ex
press that feeling, every energy of soul and body
shall be exerted to protect her just rights; but I
will not load my conscience with the weight of a |
deadly sin—the sin of perjury, to pursue what
are not her rights.
And am I for this to have my attachment
doubted? Sir, it is the spot of all on earth most
dear to my affections. 'Tis there my first breath
was drawn; 'tis there I hare been nourished and
cherished, for a life of three score years and
more; mingled with its soil are the ashes of
my sainted parents and ancestors; there Me the
mortal remains of my children, in the silent
sleep of the tomb, and there, by the side of these
loved objects, I hope to find a resting place
for all that is human of this frail tenement,
when its immortal inmate shall have taken its
flight, and left it to moulder with its mother
earth. I love my home! my native home! Yes,
sir; I love it from the very core of my heart,
and ever shall, until that heart shall cease to
pulsate; and this let no man doubt or deny.
Mr. HICKS said, he rose for the purpose of re-
minding the gentleman from Kent (Mr Chambers)
that in the outset of his (Mr. H's) remarks, he dis-
claimed any design to discuss the constitutionality
of this question. He said, however, that he in-
tended to speak to the reasonableness of the prop-
osition, as he had a perfect right to do. He was
to examine it on the common sense ground. And
he said so yet. Although doctors were said to
disagree, and lawyers, he knew, did disagree, he
must confess he felt the force of the remarks of
the gentleman from Prince George's, (Mr. Bow-
ie;) and with the constitution on that subject, ha
would leave gentlemen to entertain their own
views, without pledging himself to pronounce any
just judgment of his upon the constitutionality.
He never intended to impute any improper motive
—any want of regard or affection on the part
of the gentleman for the Eastern Shore. He
should have been one of the last men to do that.
But, as the gentleman from Kent happened to
find himself connected with the gentleman from
Frederick. (Mr. Thomas,) he must share the fate
of those who keep bad company; and not being a
lawyer himself—not understanding special plead-
ings—was obliged to take a plain, straight-forward
course, and if the gentleman desired to
compare with L. Martin, the Howards, or Barton
Key, or others, he (Mr. H.) had no such pride,
but professed to have some judgment, and he
could and would exercise that judgment in rela-
tion to his duties here; and he would discharge
them fearlessly, independently and honestly. He
felt that he had a conscience, too, and he knew, as
well as the honorable gentleman did, that he was
responsible to God, and responsible to his fellow
men. He would never have dreamt of intimating
to his honorable friend from Kent that he had been
derelict in his attachment to the Eastern Shore,
for he knew he was a much more able advocate
of the Eastern Shore interests than he (Mr. H.)
was. But, taking a common sense view of the
subject, he believed it was just as competent for
this Convention to district the State for United
States Senators as it was for members of Con-
gress. He did not believe that the Constitution
of the United States required that they should
elect a United States Senator from Baltimore or
Kent. By the by, they had been very lucky in |
