ment upon them until they are in order. I
shall then have one or two words to say upon
them by way of explanation. I will state in
advance that I think this is all wrong in
principle, and wrong in policy. And I think
that those who vote to put such provisions in
the constitution will live to regret their action
here.
As I have said, they will find examples,
numerous examples, all along the pages of
history, of the unfortunate civil wars which
have distracted other countries, and no coun-
try more than Great Britain, during a long
series of years. Those pages of bistory stand
as landmarks, and as buoys, to warn us
against the rocks and quicksands upon which
other men under like circumstances have
wrecked themselves. It is proposed now to
follow in the very footsteps, in the very track
of those who have been shipwrecked, and who
have been involved in all the calamities and
destruction of fire and sword. This nation,
with all these examples before it, blinded by
passion, is following in that track to as cer-
tain destruction as befell them, unless the
people of this country shall take the sober
second thought, discard passion, and call to
the helm of state some statesman who is ani-
mated by magnanimous views, who can look
beyond party to his whole country, and to
the interests of the human race; to the well-
being and preservation of all that is endeared
to every one of us; a man who shall be able
to still and calm these troubled elements, and
restore to us the blessings of civil liberty and
of good government, and of good order and
harmony in society.
Mr. MARBURY. I regret that I was not
here when the debate was opened upon this
report. Being one of the members of the
committee that made it, I felt an interest in it,
and should have liked to have been here and
heard all that has been said by gentlemen on
both sides.
There was a great deal in the report of the
majority of the committee that was objection-
able to me. There is also a great deal that is
objectionable to me in the amendments which
have been made to it. The proposition now
before this convention, the amendment of the
gentleman from Baltimore city (Mr. Stirling)
seems to me to embody some of the very ob-
jections that I entertain to the first section of
this report. The word "loyal," aword of
infinite signification, is contained in the first
section, and is exceedingly objectionable to
me. And I see the same word incorpora-
ted in the proposition of the gentleman from
Baltimore city, now under consideration.—
And I propose to submit a few remarks, ad-
dressed principally to the words " true alle-
giance," and the words "loyal citizens"
contained in the proposition now before this
convention.
The right of free election lies at the very
foundation of republican government. It is |
the very essence of the constitution. To vio-
late that right, and much more to transfer it
to any other set of men, is a step leading im-
mediately to the dissolution of all govern-
ment. The people of Maryland have always
in times past, guarded with more than vestal
care this fundamental principle of self-govern-
ment. By constitutional provisions and legis-
lative enactments, they have sought to pro-
vide against every conceivable effort that
might be made to suppress the voice of the
people. They have spurned the idea of ex-
cluding any one on account of his religious
or political opinions. Is it not unwise and
impolitic to depart from this established poli-
cy of the State, by introducing words into
our constitution which are calculated to re-
vive and foster that spirit of crimination and
recrimination already existing to an alarming
extent between parties in this State? The
word loyal has come to be, of late, a word
susceptible of such various construction, and
has so often been prostituted by the minions
of power, to accomplish partizan ends. that
to incorporate it into the constitution would
be nothing more nor less than creating an en-
gine of oppression, to be used by whatever
party might hold for a time the reins of
power,
The test of loyalty that would suit one par-
ty, would not answer the demands of another.
There are those who would determine, that all
who do not humbly bend the obsequious knee
to the authorities at Washington, and adopt
as their political creed all of the heresies that
emanate from the white-house, or are fulmi-
nated at the capitol, are disloyal. There are
those who would denounce as disloyal all who
will not subscribe to the doctrine that these
States were made by the Union and not the
Union made by the States.
Again, there are those who would be pro-
nounced disloyal by some, because they ob-
jected to being required to take an oath at ev-
ery turn, and before every attempt to do any-
thing affecting the interests of the State, or
themselves individually. And yet again, there
are those who, believing that the constitution
of the United States, and the laws made in
pursuance thereof, are the true standard of
loyalty, would consider those disloyal who
would violate the one, or attempt to evade
the other. It is against this latter class of
persons, I presume, that this provision that it
is now proposed to incorporate in the consti-
tution is intended to operate.
If the proposition has run the usual course
with those emanating from the majority, if it
has gone through the crucible of a caucus, and
makes its appearance here refined and purified
for adoption, it matters not who may speak,
or what may be adduced in the way of argu-
ment to show its folly. Hoping, however,
that even should this be so, there is yet patri-
otism enough left in the State to secure its
welfare against the most insidious attacks of |
