which qualified us for our seats here, was a
voluntary act. If there was no objection to
swear that they had never by word, act, or
deed, given aid or encouragement to those in
armed rebellion against the government of
the United States, why should there be any
objection now? I am not going to be guilty
of the supposition that since they took that
oath, they have done things which would
make them unwilling to take it now; certainty
not. I will not insinuate any such
thing. And therefore it is that I ask the
question, why should gentlemen now be op-
posed to swearing that they have never by
word, act, or deed, given aid or encourage-
ment to the rebellion, when they did it then
freely, and, as each one of us swore, " with-
out any mental reservation or qualification ?"
Mr. MARBURY. If the gentleman will allow
me, I will say that as I understand it, the
great objection is to sweating allegiance to
the federal government. That we conceive is
a political heresy. We do not consider that
there is any allegiance due to the federal
government; we owe our allegiance to our
State. I will swear obedience to the federal
government, if that is required; I will swear
.that I am a loyal citizen; any amount of
;that sort of swearing, I am willing to do,
And my objection to the word " loyalty," is
.that certain gentlemen are to be the judges of
the loyalty of others; they are to be the em-
bodiment of the loyalty of the country;
they are the men who are to look into the
in most recesses of our hearts, and to know
its history from alpha and omega. That is
my objection to it. It is no captious objec-
tion whatever; I am seriously in earnest
about it. I pretend to be as loyal a citizen
as any one. But I want no catch-word to be
put in here that may be used by partizans
for the accomplishment of partizan ends,
Mr. SANDS. I will just say in reply to the
remarks of the gentleman, that my edition of
Webster, and men of that sort, does not give
that signification to the word "loyalty"—
that it means a party catch-word.
Mr. MARBURY. I do not say that is the
meaning of it, but that it will be used in that
sense.
Mr. SANDS, As to the objection in regard
to the allegiance part of the matter, I have
this to say: this convention, acting as the
sovereign representatives of the State, has
already declared that the paramount alle-
giance of the citizen is due to the government
of the United States, This contention, so
far as it has done anything at all, has settled
this question of allegiance. Now, what can
be the conscientious scruple in the way, sup-
pose the people adopt this constitution, when
the constitution of the United States says
that that constitution is the supreme law of
the land, and when the constitution of Mary-
land, in the fourth article of the bill of rights
declares that the paramount allegiance of |
the citizen is due to the federal government—
what can be in the way? It is carrying
private interpretation a little too far to assert
that in the face of the law, as it exists in the
constitution of the United State's, and in the
bill of rights of the constitution of the State
of Maryland—it is carrying private interpre-
tation a little too far, for an individual resi-
dent of the State to still undertake to say
that be has another idea of allegiance, and
that he is not bound either by the constitu-
tion of" the United States, or the constitution
of the State of Maryland,
Mr. MARBURY. We do not object to swear-
ing to support the constitution of the United
States, and obeying all the laws made in
pursuance thereof. But we consider the idea
of paramount allegiance to the federal govern-
ment to be a political heresy. You may put
it in the constitution five hundred thousand
times, but you cannot make me believe it.
If you cannot convince my reason, can yon
force a belief upon me contrary to my reason?
Suppose you were to put in there that this is
amonarchical government, could you make
me believe it? And in my opinion, that 13
no more of an absurdity than the other.
Mr. SANDS. I only want to say that we
are legislating here, not for the private opin-
ion of any individual citizen of the State.
We are setting up this law for the rule of
civil conduct in the State; we are doing that
or nothing. Suppose an individual comes
into this State who is of the Mormon persua-
sion, and says: "1 do not believe in your
one wife system; and anything yon put in
the laws upon that subject does not bind
me." What would be the result should he
act as be says he believes? The constitution
and the laws would bind him in one way at
least; he would be apt to be indicted, tried,
and punished for bigamy or polygamy. And
this doctrine of private interpretation can be
carried to just as great excess in the one case
as in the other. Who would argue that our
code and the general law of the State as
embodied in the constitution, should be left
in such a condition that through the private
interpretation of those who embrace the creed
of Mormonism, they could come into this
State, and do as they please? Private inter-
pretation must cease somewhere; and it must
cease just where the constitution of the United
States, and the constitution of the State of
Maryland limit it; it must cease there.
1 had no intention at first of submitting
any remarks to the convention upon this
report of the committee over which I bad the
honor of presiding. But as I have said, I felt
compelled to say what I have said by what
has been said by gentlemen who have pre-
ceded me. As to the immediate amendment
' under consideration, I shall leave that to the
gentleman who brought it forward.
Mr. JONES, of Somerset. My friend from
Howard (Mr. Sands) has on several occasions |
