Union of the States. The internal policy of
the States has nothing whatever to do with
the question. The internal policy of the
States the gentleman may arrange according
to his judgment of what may happen in the
future, as he sees fit. The reason why he is
bound to swear to support the Union is
the very reason that I suggested—that it
means the nation—it means the people of the
United States, who even now, after the ter-
rible conflict in their midst—all the people
of the United States represented by their
government, by the President whom they
constitutionally elect—have certain great
public properties belonging to them—the
capitol Washington, the military school at
West Point, the various arsenals, a name
among the nations, great in the past, and as I
hope in the future, still to be great. He is
bound to respect, and lo swear to defend that
Union which, in my judgment, as I before
said to him, is only the representative of the
nation,
Mr. EDELEN. With or without slavery ?
Mr. PUGH. Certainly, with or without
slavery; I said that before. That is a mat-
ter of mere opinion with me. I religiously
believe that this people will never be united
as any other than a tree people and until the
institution of slavery as a system is removed.
That is merely my opinion. But the gentle-
man must recognize the existence of the
Union, or of the nation as characterized by
the word "Union," and swear to support
that nation. I come to the conclusion that
the word is used in this amendment to mean
nothing else than the United States of America
as they are known to the world. There is
no difficulty ill knowing what is meant.
Mr. NEGLEY. In the vote which I am
about to give upon this amendment I shall
not be governed by many of the reasons ad-
duced by the gentleman from Cecil (Mr.
Pugh.) I certainly do consider the consti-
tution of the United States in a different light
from that in which he has placed it. I expect
to see the abolition of slavery all over this
land, not by any extra constitutional means,
but by means perfectly constitution. I ex-
pect to see this government subsist, not
without law, but with law. I expect to
see this constitution go on and this gov-
ernment subsist for years, and perhaps it
will continue for centuries, not as it is now,
but under the power of change which the
constitution has provided in itself.
Is there no way constitutionally to get rid
of slavery? Is there not a great moral revo-
lution going on now in this country? Are
not the minds and opinions of men chang-
ing from one end of it to the other. Every
revolution brings with it a moral change.
There never was a revolution without a
moral change, a change in the opinions of
men on some subject or other at the epoch
of that revolution. At the epoch of this |
revolution it is upon the question of slavery.
The people are never stirred up by revolu-
tion without its bringing to the surface the
results of that moral change.
How shall we get rid of slavery in a consti-
tutional way? We shall soon have two-
thirds of the States in the country free States.
They can propose amendments to the constitution
by which slavery shall beabolished all
over the country when those amendments be-
come a part of the constitution.
Another way is that the President has
issued his proclamation emancipating the
slaves within the States in revolt. Now it is
a question for the Supreme Court of the
United States to decide, whether that as a
war measure, was a constitutional measure
or not. If they declare that it was a consti-
tutional power to liberate the slaves in the
States in rebellion as a war measure, then
slavery is gone.
But we are to get rid of slavery not in any
extra constitution way at all.
I think that the amendment of the gentle-
man from Baltimore city is not such a mon-
strous thing as it has been supposed by some
gentlemen, who say that it is an abridgment
of the liberty of speech an invasion of the
liberty of the press. Is a man permitted to
say anything and everything? is lie permit-
ted to write and publish anything and every-
thing? Can he publish a libel? If liberty
does not mean unbridled license, this is just
the restriction I wish to put upon it here, if
it be a restriction at all, that a main shall not
use his speech in such a way as to violate his
duty to the country and endanger the public
good. Why is not a man allowed to publish
an obscene picture and spread it broadcast
over the land? Because it is detrimental to
the public morals and strikes at the founda-
tion of society. Why do we here purge a
man's conscience upon these questions? It
is because treason strikes at the foundation of
society. You can endanger the safety of the
community just as much by treason in one
way, as you can by the publication of obscene
pictures in another. Liberty of speech is not
unbridled license, nor is liberty of the
press unbridled license.
1 do not think we are living in a time
without any law. The President of the Uni-
ted States has not violated the law. Has
not Congress given him the right to suspend
the writ of habeas corpus! Is not the Presi-
dent of the United States imprisoning these
home rebels under that process granted by
law? I cannot see in that such a monstrous
departure from the law. I cannot see any
peculiar hardship in the way of passing this
section. That is a matter for gentlemen
themselves to consider. They are the judges
of their own consciences; and if they are con-
victed out of their own consciences, whom
can they blame but themselves when they os-
tracise themselves? If they are rebels, if |
