paramount; thug providing for the safety and
perpetuity of our State government and also
the protection of our people at home and
abroad.
Then what harm can there be in the next
clause of the oath? " That I have never di-
rectly or indirectly, by word, act or deed,
given any aid, comfort or encouragement to
those in rebellion against the United States or
the lawful authorities thereof, but that I have
been truly and loyally on the side of the Uni-
ted States against. those in armed rebellion
against the United States."
In providing officers for the State of Mary-
land under the new constitution, especially in
this great national crisis of our affairs, it be-
comes necessary for us to secure those persons
who are friendly to the State, who have never
been inimical to it and endeavored to subvert
the State government, because I hold that
in subverting the Union or destroying this na-
tion, you destroy the State. Therefore it is
not unreasonable to provide as a qualification
for officers, that those persons only shall fill
the offices but those who owe paramount allegiance
to the Union, and thus to secure the
perpetuation of the State government. It is
not unreasonable to provide that those who
hold these offices shall take this oath, when
we consider that the first and chief thing to
be attained is to select men who will faithful-
ly serve the State. Would any one serve the
State of Maryland, as an officer, faithfully
zealously and honestly, who could not take
this oath? Certainly not. No one would be
expected to do so by the majority of the peo-
ple of Maryland. I say therefore that it is
right that they should be able to take this part
of the oath conscientiously, in order to be
able to serve the people of Maryland in the of-
fices of the State government :
"And I do further swear or affirm that I
will, to the best of my abilities, protect and
defend the Union of the United States, and
not allow the same to be broken up and dis-
solved, or the government thereof to be destroyed
under any circumstances, if in my
power to prevent it, and that I will at all
times discountenance and oppose all political
combinations having for their object such dis-
solution or destruction."
Now I say that the destruction of the na-
tional government is the destruction of the
State. Every one who takes the view of the
case that we owe paramount allegiance must
agree to that. To destroy the national gov-
ernment is to destroy the State; to preserve
the national government is to preserve the
State. Therefore it is not unreasonable that
we should require persons in the service of
the State not only to be able to take this
oath, but to be able to keep this oath.
Something has been said here to-day about
the difference between moral and legal trea-
son, or treason that does not show itself
openly in overt acts. Moral treason, if |
1 understand what is meant by the term,
means a wish or intention to subvert the
government, unaccompanied by any act tend-
ing to secure or attain that result. It is
a kind of treason we cannot punish, because
it does not show itself, nor does it end in any-
thing. The moment it gets so far as to be
open and overt, then it becomes not moral
but legal treason, which can be punished.
It was also said to-day that Abraham Lin-
coln and his army could just as well subvert
the constitution as Jeff. Davis and his army.
That IS what I understood to be the effeect of
the remark of the gentleman from Somerset.
Mr. JONES, of Somerset. All I meant to ask
was this, whether subverting the constitution
in the north by force of arms was not the same
in effect as subverting it in the south by force
of arms; whether the subversion of the con-
stitution either in the north or the south by
military power were not equally treason.
Mr. THRUSTON. There is no doubt about
that. Treason may be committed in the north
as well as in the south. The commission of
overt acts with the intention of subverting the
government may just as well take place in the
north as in the south,
Mr. JONES, of Somerset. That is all I meant
to say.
Mr. THRUSTON. The difference between the
two cases is plainly before our eyes. The one
openly declares his intention to dissolve the»
Union and destroy the constitution. The other
is doing overtly everything in his power to
save the Union and to maintain the constitu-
tion. I can see no parallelism whatever between
the two cases. Jeff. Davis claims to be a trai-
tor, an open rebel subverting the government.
On the other hand, the administration now
in power is doing all that it can do to maintain
the government.
Mr. JONES, of Somerset. If the gentleman
will allow me, I will say that it was with re-
ference to the words expressly used by the
gentleman from Cecil (Mr. Pugh) that I used
the illustration.
Mr. PUGH. If the gentleman from Allegany
will permit the interruption—1 do not like to
interrupt his remarks—but I would like to
know what reference it has to anything I said.
Mr, JONES, of Somerset. It was only with
reference to what the gentleman from Cecil
said about waging the war until slavery was
exterminated; which I say is in violation of
the Constitution of the United States.
Mr. THURSTON resumed: I do not understand
that that is so. As to the oath taken to sup-
port the administration, the oath is to support
the government of the country. So long as
Mr. Lincoln, or any one else, occupies the
chair as President of the country, and con-
tinues acting as President of the country, he
must be sustained under the oath to support
the government of the country. We have
provided for getting rid of men who do not car-
ry out the constitution and the laws by our fre- |
