tem of despotism? Is there any expression
in the whole protest that impeaches the mo-
tives of any gentleman upon this floor? I
defy any one to point it out. There is noth-
ing there but an expression of opinion in
regard to the character of the principles
which regulate the action of the house; and
the opinions of the individual inembers sign-
ing that paper, as to the consequences result-
ing from the adoption of these general meas-
ures. If we are to be debarred the privilege
of expressing our sentiments to this extent,
I would not give one farthing for the rem-
nant that would be left of the liberty of
speech.
I repeat again, that paper has been can.
tiously drawn, to avoid reflecting upon any
one member of this body, or all of the mem-
bers of ibis body. We differ in our opinion, I
have no right to doubt, with as much hon-
esty on the part of the majority as on the
part of the minority. We differ. That dif-
ference is stated. The majority have slated
their opinion in the form of resolutions. We
state our differing opinion in the form of a
protest. And I am astonished that the gen-
tleman from Cecil (Mr. Scott) can make an
insult to arise from such a proceeding.
Mr. SCHLEY. The question being upon the
reception and placing upon .the journal of
this offensive protest, I withdrew the motion
to lay upon the table. I have used the
words "offensive protest," and in reply
to my friend from Baltimore county (Mr.
Ridgely,) I would say that offence and
insult may be conveyed as well in acts
as in language. The gentleman from
Kent (Mr. Chambers) wants to know what
insult or offence this proposed protest con-
veys. He asks for one offensive word in it.
I will not refer him to the word. There is
much in it, and in the whole tenor of it, that
conveys offence and insult to this body. I
look upon the whole of it as not only offen-
sive to this body) but as an argument against
the federal government, meant to have its
effect,
Now what is the object of entering this
protest upon the journal? Is it to assure the
liberty of speech to the gentleman from Kent,
and the minority with whom he acts? Have
they been debarred any liberty of speech?
Have they been debarred any response to the
action of this house? Look at the reports of
your debates; I venture to say they teem
with arguments upon their side. Look at
your journal; were they denied the privi-
lege of expressing their opinion of those res-
olutions when they were up? Have they
not, by yeas and nays, entered their response,
their protest against them?
And is this simply a protest? No, sir; it
goes beyond the limits and purview of a pro-
test into argument and denunciation. The
gentleman Bays it is cautiously drawn. Aye,
and insidiously, too, permit me to add. |
Mr. CHAMBERS. That is a more offensive
term than any used in the paper.
Mr. SCHLEY. What is its object? Is it
merely to protest against the action of this
body? If that be its only object, has not that
object been already accomplished upon the
journal of debates of this body? No, sir; it
has another object. 1 can only tell inferen-
tially what that object is, not knowing, the
secret purposes of either the gentleman who
prepared the paper, or the gentlemen who
have signed it. 1 can only deduce it» object
inferentially. Its object is to keep up a pro-
longed agitation in this State; its object is to
denounce the action of this convention, the
recommendation of this convention; its object
is to aim a blow at the government of this
country, to which we have professed a su-
preme allegiance. And so believing, 1 shall
vote against its being recorded upon the
journal.
Mr. PUGH. The one objection more than
any other that I have to putting an argument
of this character upon the journal is, that it
is an argument which, under the circum-
stances, we have no privilege of answering.
Many of the gentlemen who have signed this
protest were not in their places, as they
should have been, at the time these resolu-
tions were offered for the consideration of
this convention if they had been here,
they would have had the privilege of entering
their protest by voting. But since they
were not here, they now come forward and
ask to have their reasons entered upon the
journal, if that privilege is granted, then
they will have an advantage over many of
us, because any of the majority who were so
unfortunate as to be absent at the time when
we could have entered upon the journal our
approval by voting for these resolutions,
have not been allowed the privilege which is
now asked to be extended to several of the
gentlemen who have signed this protest, who
were not here at the time time questions
were belore the convention. They should
have been here and should have voted.
Those who were here and who did vote,
have received all they could ask of this con-
vention, in my judgment, all that it was ex-
pected at that time any member of the con-
vention wanted. This was supposed to be
one of those subjects that it was not expected
or intended should be asubject of debate. It
occurred to the majority of this body, that
these subjects were of that character upon
which it was necessary to give an immediate
expression of the opinion of this convention ;
and subjects upon which it was not necessary
at all to waste time in debate; that an ex-
pression of opinion was to be given pro or
con, right at once.
Many of these gentlemen were not here at
the time; they now come forward and want
to put themselves upon the record. But bow
does that affect other members of the body |
