I did not observe from the reading of this
paper any language that was in the slightest
degree offensive to the majority of this body.
It was pretty much a recapitulation of the
arguments which have been used upon
this floor by gentlemen upon the several occa-
sions to which it refers If the protest bad
contained language which in its nature was
offensive to the majority of this body, or
otherwise, it would be right and proper that
the majority in vindication of their own self-
respect, and of their own sense of propriety
should exclude it from the journal. But as the
reading of it has developed no such language,
and it is simply a recapitulation of the argu-
ments which have been used by these gentle-
men upon the several topics referred to in
that paper, I trust that that majority with
which I act will permit the paper to take the
proper and ordinary course and go upon the
journal.
We have nothing to fear from it. There is
nothing in it which in the slightest degree
prejudices our position. We have put our
views upon the journal, and they go out to-
gether. And even if it should be deemed so
strong, argumentative and logical a paper as
to require a response, it is competent for us
also to put upon the journal a paper of a cor-
responding character. But I do not think it
requires any procedure of that kind. It is
simply the exercise of a privilege which pre-
vails in every well regulated parliamentary
body everywhere. The right is in the body
to protect Itself from insult, indignity and
offence If any offence is designed to the
majority of this body, they will take good
care so to protect themselves.
But in this particular instance I trust the
majority will not exclude this paper. We
have nothing to fear from it. I do not con-
sider that there is any strength, force or
power in the arguments there adduced
against the action of this body upon the sub-
jects to which they refer. We have nothing
to fear from it. I trust, therefore, the minor-
ity will be permitted, as a privilege which
belongs to them, to put upon the journal
whatever they please, provided it be not
offensive to the majority of this body. For
one I have seen nothing in it which offends
me, and nothing in it which I think should
offend the most fastidious member of the ma-
jority here. Surely there is nothing in it
which in the alightest degree impairs the
strength of our position upon the subjects
referred to therein.
Mr. SCOTT. If the gentleman from Balti-
more county (Mr. Ridgely) can see no often.-
sive language In the document which has
been read here, I should like very much to
see language which he would call offensive.
THIS paper indulges in a very latitudinous
lecture to the majority for their general
dereliction of duty, in meddling with mat-
ters and things which do not concern them,
25 |
and it caps the climax by directly charging
upon the majority the inauguration of a mil-
itary despotism in the State. Yet the gen-
tleman from Baltimore county can see noth-
ing offensive in all this. For my part, 1 con-
sider it a direct insult to the majority of the
house, and altogether unworthy and unfit to
go upon the journal.
Mr. CHAMBERS. If the gentleman from
Cecil (Mr. Scott) can find one word in this
whole protest which is offensive personally
or collectively to this body, be is able to dis-
cover what its authors have not been able to
find. We profess therein certain principles.
We say that certain measures will result in
certain consequences. Is the gentleman so
far disposed to avail himself of the power of
the majority of this body as to prevent the
minority from expressing their opinions of
the consequences of certain acts, of a certain
course of action, and to define what they sup-
pose will result as a consequence from the
adoption of certain principles? Are we to
pass no opinions upon measures? Is the
declaration of our belief that certain conse-
quences will necessarily result from the adop-
tion of certain measures, to be deemed per-
sonally offensive to members here? Does
the dignity of the majority require that the
minority should be restrained from showing
to the world, especially to their constituents,
the result of proposed or adopted measures?
Where is the personality in saying that such
and such a course of proceeding amounts to
a military despotism? Have 1 not the right
to say such is my belief? Is the gentleman
offended by my expressing that opinion?
Does the gentleman feel in any degree in-
sulted because I think that when you invite
the President of the United States or any one
of his appointed officers, to come into the
State of Maryland, and ad libitum, with court
or jury, or any other process of law, assess at
his sole discretion the amount which one per-
son is to pay, and which another person is
to receive; and proceed to administer the
law in that respect? I say that in my hum-
ble judgment that is equivalent to a military
despotism. Does that insult the gentleman
from Cecil (Mr. Scott ?) Then our months
are to be hermetically sealed; we are to sit
the silent spectators of a proceeding, and not
even be permitted to discuss what will prob-
ably be the result of the action.
Now 1 take no exception to any one of the
remarks of the gentleman from Baltimore
county (Mr. Ridgely.) I think he has taken
the true ground. The dignity of the body,
and of every member of it should require
that nothing should go upon its journal
which personally reflects upon its members,
or is personally insulting to them as partici-
pants in the adoption or these measures.
Now is there a word in this paper saying that
any one of the majority would knowingly,
or willingly, or intentionally introduce a sys- |
