neither Constitution nor law could resist or op-
pose their sovereign willl That will would be
Constitution and law above all restraint; and in-
clude in itself, legislative, executive and judicial
authority. Sir, is this theory attractive which
yields results so full of mischief? But fortunately,
it is as impracticable, as it is mischievously. The
government of the United States originates from
the supreme sovereign power of the people of the
United States. They are as supreme and sovereign
in relation to that government as the people
of Maryland are in relation to our State
government. There is as much moral and poli-
tical propriety in respecting their rights, as there
is in respecting the rights of the people of Maryland.
If it be a gross violation of rights to delegate
powers of government in the one case, it is
equally so in the other. And now, sir, fancy
such a thing as an attempt on the part of the
good people of this great nation of almost bound-
less extent, reaching from the BORDER=0s of China
to the gulf of St, Lawrence—fancy this mass of
human beings scattered over this extened area,
claiming to exercise in person those functions of
administration which they insist are a portion of
their just prerogative—claiming, in the language
of the gentleman, "a restoration" of their rights!
"a restoration!" Why, sir, when have the peo-
ple ever exercised such rights? Never—never'
The claim now preferred is a novelty, and one
of late date too. How did our fathers understand
it? I have attempted to explain what our bill of
rights declares, what our Maryland fathers de-
signed; but it will require no elucidation to show
what was the understanding of the sages who
declared the independence of the Nation, as well
as the rights of the people; and who subsequently
poured out of their treasure and their blood in
defence of those rights, in the very first clause
enumerating the causes of separation from the
British government, and setting forth what are
inalienable rights, it is declared that "to secure
those rights, governments are instituted, deriving
their just powers from the consent of the governed;"
that is, the people;—"and whenever any form of
government becomes destructive of these ends, it
is the right of the people to abolish it and"—to do
what, sir?—administer it themselves? Not at all.
What they wished to do in such case, was "to in-
stitute a new government"—"organizing its power
in such a form as to them shall seem most likely
to effect their safety and happiness"—"to provide
new guards for their future security." Here,
sir, is the true theory. Government is an insti-
tution." The right of the people—their inaliena-
ble right—is to "organze"' it; not to administer it.
Pursuant to this theory, the whole government
of the United States was organized, and its Con-
stitution is nothing but a delegation of authority
to officers and agents, to administer it; and
amongst other means, to nominate and appoint
other officers and agents, to aid in its administra-
tion.
And now, sir, I must guard against the attempt
to misapply, or the danger of misapprehending
what I have said I do not at all mean to question
the power, or the right of the people to provide, |
by the Constitution for the election of judges.
Quite the reverse. The very object of a written
Constitution is to parcel out those portions of the
sovereign power which the people find it neces-
sary to delegate for good government. They
may rightfully determine what shall be done;
how, and by whom it may be done. They may
determine that a judge, or any other officer may
be elected by all the voters in the State, by voters
in particular districts, by the Executive, by the
Legislature, or by a college of electors. No
doubt of this. They may do so by providing for
the selection of all officers in one way; or by directing
that some of them be selected in one way,
and some in another. But what I maintain is,
they no more divest themselves of any inaliena-
ble right by prescribing one mode, than they do
by prescribing any other. If the sovereign pow-
er authorizes the executive to appoint a judge or
any other officer, the executive acts in obedience
to the lawful mandate of the sovereign power.
If the Constitution directs the judge or other
officer to be created by the votes of the people of
the State, or any portion of it; then the election
is in obedience to a mandate equally lawful, and
emanating from the same sovereign power. The
real question then to be considered, and the only
one is a question, not of "right," but of "expedi-
ency." What is the method of proceeding most
likely to attain the object we have in view?
This is the subject for our consideration, and we
are not to be enlightened as to our conclusions
on this point, by the notion of a "restoration" to
the people of any rights of which they have been
deprived. Restoration is a relative term. It
imports the return of an object to the person
from whom it has been taken. Where, and
when did the people exercise this inalienable
right? Where, when, and by whom was it taken
away? The Constitution of the United States— a
the mandate of people of the United States—vests
the appointment of the judiciary in the President
and Senate. Our State Constitution, from its
origin, has vested this power of appointment in I
the Executive, There is no aggression upon the
rights of the people. And any argument which
professes to show any invasion of such rights,
must be without the shadow of a foundation.
The judiciary is a branch, a necessary and im-
portant branch of government. It is,—at least it
is intended to be,—a most available agent, in ef-
fecting the ends of government. What the end
of government is, we have already heard from
the highest authority;—"to secure our rights,
amongst which are life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness:"—to protect every man who needs
protection, in the enjoyment of his rights of per-
son, his rights of property and of reputation. It
is is not to protect a majority against a minority of
the community; but for the protection of each indi-
vidual citizen against a violation of his rights by
any other individual, or number of individuals. It
does not provide a remedy for such as suffer no
wrong; or relief for those, who have sustained no
injury. On the contrary, the redress, it promises, is
only to him, whose rights have been invaded; all
its protection is promised to him, who may be- |
