look to the constitution of the land and the
laws of Congress for that law. And I read in
that constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press."
Has the freedom of speech not been
abridged? Has the freedom of the press not
been abridged? The gentleman from Cecil
county, as I see in his printed remarks, for I
did not hear them, seems to think it is an evi-
dence of very great liberally on the part of the
government, an evidence of the extreme free-
dom that pervades this nation, that an indi-
vidual member of this convention may stand
here and speak the sentiments of his mind.—.
He says that that is an evidence that this is
not the tyrannical, outrageous government
that the opponents of it would have us believe.
In the name of God has it come to that, that
an American of this land must look to Wash-
ington before he dares speak the sentiments of
his soul? Has it come to that, that the great
charter of our liberty, the constitution of the
land, which guarantees and gives to us all
our rights, and limits the executive power, is
to be trampled under foot, and that it is a great
privilege to look to Washington for permis-
sion to speak what and when we please ?
Again, sir, we read in the constitution of
the United States:
"A well-regulated militia being necessary
to the security of a free State, the right of the
people to keep and bear arms shall not be in-
fringed."
Has not that right been infringed? Has
not every member of this convention seen
your armed posses going through the land,
invading the sanctity of your houses, trespass-
ing upon the privacy of your families, break-
ing open the secret recesses of your chambers,
under a military order searching for arms)
your right to keep which the constitution
says shall not be infringed.
"No soldier shall, in time of peace, be
quartered in any house without the consent of
the owner; nor in time of war, but in aman-
ner to be prescribed by law."
Is that observed? Is that practiced? Are
soldiers quartered upon you now in a manner
prescribed by law? No, sir; it is not law,
''The right of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated; and no warrants shall
issue but upon probable cause, supported by
oath or affirmation, and particularly describ-
ing the place to he searched, and the persons
or things to be seized."
That is the law. That is a part of the gov-
ernment of your land. That is as much
yours as the right by which you live and move
and have your being. It is a part of the in-
herent right of the free citizens of this land,
that no power has the right to take away.— |
Yet has it been observed? Has it been kept ?
Do not your northern bastiles echo with the
groans of their wretched inmates? and is not
the cry of the widow and orphan breaking
upon the midnight hour, when the soldiers of
this land and of this government, who ought
to have been fighting for the defence of its
laws and its constitution, have gone there to
drag the trembling inmate from the sanc-
tity of his home which even the king of Eng-
land dared not violate,
" No person shall be held to answer for a
capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless
on a presentment or indictment of a grand
jury, except in cases arising in the land or
naval forces, or in the militia when in actual
service in time of war or public danger; nor
shall any person be subject for the same of-
fence to be put twice in jeopardy of life or
limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal
case to be witness against himself; nor be
deprived of life, liberty or property, without
due process of law; nor shall private property
be taken for public use, without just compen-
sation,"
Is there a single solitary clause of this sec-
tion that has not been violated? Is it not
printed in glaring capitals that the whole
world may read, that there is not a solitary
right written down here, intended to be se-
cured to the land, that has not been outraged
and violated ?
"In all criminal prosecutions the accused
shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public
trial, by an impartial jury of the State and
district wherein the crime shall have been
committed, which district shall have been
previously ascertained by law, and to be in-
formed of the nature and cause of the accu-
sation; to be confronted with the witnesses
against him; to have compulsory process for
obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have
the assistance of counsel for his defence."
Has that been observed? Has that been
kept? Yet gentlemen tell me that. all these
filings which have been done, are the govern-
ment and the law. God save us from such a
government ! For one, sir, I will never will-
ingly take the clause of the oath which this
amendment requires me to take, that I will
preserve such a government under any cir-
cumstances whatever,
" In suits at common law, where the value
in controversy shall exceed $20, the right of
trial by jury shall be preserved; and no fact
tried by jury shall be otherwise re-examined
in any court of the United States than accord-
ing to the rules of the common law,
" Excessive bail shall not be required, nor
excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual
punishments inflicted."
Has that been kept? Has it been observed ?
Yet, sir, that is the government of the coun-
try. That is the law of the land. That is
what I have conceived that every man who
had ever read the written law or understood |
