says to his dissatisfied country, "Suppose
you make a war; you cannot fight always,
and when you have fought for years years with no
great advantage on either side"—that has
precisely been fulfilled—" the same questions
will come back upon you to be settled by ne-
gotiation as lo the terms of future inter-
course." is not that true to-day? Why
will you attempt here to put a reminder into
your constitution on the suspicion, for it is
nothing more, that there are disloyal men in
your midst? For Heaven's sake, is it possi-
ble that there can be men committing the
crimes enumerated here—committing these
political offences in the State of Maryland,
surrounded as they are on every side by spies
and detectives of the government, whom the
President has unlimited power to employ—
around us even in our hotels—is it possible
that these offences can be committed and yet
that the government can obtain no evidence
by which they can come upon the man who
is guilty indeed and try and punish the
offender according to law? Must we get up
these ex post facto declarations of offences to
disqualify men?
There is an injustice in what the gentleman
says about not requiring a man to testify
against himself, because he is only required
to swear in case he accepts the office. If a
man is to be perfectly pure and fee from all
stain of political offences be ought also to be
perfectly pure and free from all violation of
the moral law. It is just as much an offence
to violate the moral law as the political law.
His allegiance to his God is quite as strong
as his allegiance to his country, if he must
swear that he has never failed in rendering
true allegiance to his country, be should also
swear that he has never violated the moral
law; and I have therefore embraced in one
of my amendments the oath—that lie has
never violated the moral law known as the
Ten Commandments, as contained in the
20th chapter of the book of Exodus. There
would not many of us hold office or vote
either hereafter, under such rules, I confess
that I would retire for I could not take it.
But if you are to take the other test, I think
yon should adopt that, no matter whom it
may exclude. I thought yesterday that the
gentleman was most magnanimous in propos-
ing that nobody but a native-born Mary-
lander should beeligible to the office of gov-
ernor, thereby excluding himself, but it
turned out that be only meant to exclude
those not born in the United States, and that
citizens of Massachusetts were not excluded
by his amendment.
I am sorry to say that the foundation of all
this trouble and of all our troubles is that
cursed love of self which is apostrophised
by the poet:
" Oh, cursed idol, self ! "
The wretch that worships there would dare to
tread. |
With impious feet on his own father's head—
To 'scape the rising wave when seas the land
invade—
To gain the safety of some higher ground,
He'd trample down the dikes that fence his
country 'round,
Amidst a general flood, and leave a nation
drowned!"
1 thank the convention for the magnani-
mous forbearance with which they hive list-
ened to my remarks, and I appeal to them not
to incorporate the bitter feelings arising out
of this civil war into the organic law of the
State.
Mr, THOMAS called for the previous ques-
tion, but the call was not sustained.
Mr. SANDS. I wish to ask my friend this
question, whether if his amendment prevailed
it would not destroy all government all over
the earth? If men were required to swear
that they hod never violated the Ten Com-
mandments, would it not destroy civil gov-
ernment utterly ?
Mr. JONES, of Somerset. I think it would.
No—1 rather think there would befound men
under the intense feeling? of selfishness who
would take the oath every day if required,
as is done about the blockade now.
Mr. SANDS. I hope the gentleman will not
throw objections in the way by an amend-
ment proposing an oath no one can take.
Mr. JONES, of Somerset. That is the very
objection I raised to the other oath. But al-
though I proponed this amendment I cannot
vote for it myself.
Mr. SANDS The gentleman from Somerset
(Mr, Jones) read the policy of the govern-
ment in 1861, I would like to ask my friend
whether he was found among the supporters
of that policy then. I would like to know
whether he did not hear that policy denounced
high and low, far and wide, in the State of
Maryland under the rehellion. When I put
the question to him why the whole Southern
country did not embrace it, his reply was that
be was not responsible for the whole Southern
country. Now, on what principle does he al-
lude to a single man from Massachusetts,
Wendell Phillips, and attempt to hold us,
and the government, and everybody responsi-
ble for him? the President, through his
mouth-piece, went further in 1861, in order
to quiet the country and to relieve appre-
hension, when he said this in Washington:
"The government of the United States has
no more to do with slavery in the States
than with serfdom in) Russia." in the name
of God, ought not that to have satisfied
the gentlemen? Yet you heard all over this
State but the cry of the down-trodden South-
ern brethren, our wronged Southern breth-
ren, although this policy bad been an-
nounced by the President, and although the
declaration of Mr. Lincoln in his inaugural
said to the country far and wide that the |
