hundreds of them. And why? Because
they preached and taught heresies that mis-
led others? No, sir. But because they loved
the land that gave them birth, and were will-
ing to die for it.
Now there is no doubt about the true ring
of that word "loyal." We have rather
changed sides on this question. There was
a time when the cavalier was willing to die
for his king upon the bare idea of loyalty.
"Loyalty" was his watch-word. But now
we have changed sides; and if you only
breathe in the ears of (he chivalry the word
"loyalty,'' they are like Richard—"Ifs shad-
ows to-night have struck more terror to the
soul of Richard, than could ten thousand sol-
diers armed in proof, and led by shallow Rich-
mond," The very wold is a bomb-shell to
them. Now I think it is a good word, and
I trust in God it will never lose its signifi-
cance. I trust in God it will go upon every
page of our laws, constitutional and statuto-
ry, where it is appropriate. It is a good
thing. And if it had been honestly lived up
to and practiced, instead now of the booming
of cannon and the clashing of swords, the
song of peace would have been sounding all
over the land. It is because men were not
loyal, but were disloyal, that these things are
upon us now,
I wish now to say just .a word or two in
reply to some remarks that fell from the gen-
tleman from Somerset (Mr. Jones.) His gen-
eral principles are always good; his premises
are sound. But I sometimes cannot under-
stand the logical processes by which my excel-
lent friend readies his conclusions. He ut-
tered what we all know to be a correct max-
im, that all men are presumed to be innocent
until proven guilty. That is all right. And he
says that no man shall be compelled to give
testimony against himself. That is all right.
And then comes the conclusion that we are
presuming all men to be guilty. Now we are
not, we are hoping and praying that they are
not. And instead of compelling them to come
into court and testify against themselves, we
simply say to them—"go into the court of
conscience; conscience shall be your judge ;
no one shall be heard against you; you shall
go into the privacy of you own house and
your own closet, away from the ears of any
one; and if conscience acquits you, we acquit
you also. " Now where is the hardship of all
that? Where is the difficulty in the way of
an innocent man? I cannot see it. There is
no difficulty there to me.
I make the same distinction between the
constitution of my country, the laws of my
country, the government of my country and
those who administer it for the time, as the
gentlemen do in one sense. I know they are
distinct. But I know that the one cannot exist
a moment without the other. I know that
those constitutionally chosen to administer
the government are the motive power of the |
government. I know that my country can
no more exist without its constitutional ad-
ministrators, than a locomotive can run from
here to the junction without steam, The constitution
is worthless; it is dead; it is as if it
were not, without the motive power. And
no man has the right, and no man ever did
have the right to rebel against the adminis-
trators of this government until they had in-
fringed his constitutional rights. Now let
gentlemen deny if they can, let them claim
if they can that the mere administrators
of the government are to be rebelled against
and driven from power, simply because they
are distasteful to a portion of the people, be-
fore they have exercised unconstitutionally
one of their attributes and powers. Not so,
And men who lived under the constitution of
the United States, whether they resided in
Maryland, or in Maine, or in Texas, or in
South Carolina, know this fact. And if they
had been sincere in their love for the one, they
would have stood by the other, until that
other had done something that was wrong
and oppressive,
Now, is that the history of this rebellion ?
On the pretence of the election of our present
President, they have made war upon their
country; not upon him, for be was not in
power when they commenced this rebellion.
He was then a private citizen; just as much
a private citizen as the gentleman from Som-
erset, or myself. But in bare hostility to the
man, they have made war upon your country
or mine. And they did it, some with bayo-
nets and some, the subtler few, by word and
other deed. Now, my friend from Somerset
(Mr. Jones) said that his objection to the
oath in this article, was, that it went to the
word, and act, and deed of a party. Why,
my dear sir, did you not, before you were
qualified for a seat upon this floor, take and
subscribe to an oath in which those very
words stand printed?
Mr. JONES, of Somerset. I was speaking of
the amendment of the gentleman from Balti-
more city (Mr. Stirling,) and not to what
had been reported from the committee, which
I had not had an opportunity of reading. I
do not know what language is used in the
report of the committee,
Mr. EDELEN. The amendment of the gen-
tleman from Baltimore city (Mr. Stirling,) is
very different from the report of the com-
mittee.
Mr. SANDS. My remarks were intended to
meet the general debate in which gentlemen
have indulged. I have no doubt the gentle-
man from Baltimore city will take care of his
amendment, I say that the very oath that
qualified us to take our Beats here, is in that
exact language. If gentlemen, then, without
any violation of conscience, whose dictates of
course they obeyed, took that oath, there was.
no compulsion upon them to come here; it
was a voluntary act. The taking of the oath |
