quent elections. That is the remedy we have
provided in case the government is not admin-
istered in such a way as tie be acceptable to
the majority of the people—not rebellion,
which has as its sole object the destruction
and dissolution of the government.
I merely rise to say that I cannot see any-
where that any of the objections to this amend-
ment have any pertinency in fact. Certainly
I say that persons who cannot conscientiously
take this oath ought not to expect, and ought
not to be permitted to serve the State of Ma-
ryland. Unless they can honestly and con-
scientiously take the oath that they have not
done anything to destroy the government,
and will not do anything to destroy it, hut
the reverse, how can they expect that their
services will be acceptable to the majority of
the people?
This oath requires nothing more than usual,
except that in previous constitutions no one
has ever contemplated such a state of affairs
as exists to-day. Finding ourselves in this
state of affairs, now that we are about to form
anew constitution for our State, I hold that
we should be recreant to our faith if we did
not try to throw around our government ev-
ery guard that we can against the dangers
which we see to threaten its existence. I pre-
sume it will be admitted that among the greatest
traitors in the State have been found men
filling offices in the State. We ought to de-
clare in this constitution that no person shall
bo qualified for an office who would be amere
clog upon the government, and who would be
unwilling to support it.
I am therefore in favor of the amendment
as it stands. I have heard no reasonable ob-
jection to it, and can conceive of no reasona-
ble argument that can be biought against it,
taking our view of the case—which is certainly
the correct view—that to the general govern-
ment we owe paramount allegiance, and that
in providing for its security and safety we are
most effectually providing for our own secu-
rity and our own safely
Mr. DANIEL. I had designed to offer an
amendment at the proper time; and although
I do not know that I shall offer it, I will read
it in explanation of the view which I take of
this question. It retains nearly the same lan-
guage, but is somewhat condensed, and with
a little addition. The last clause of the amend-
ment is this:
"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 dissolved, 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."
Instead of that I propose that the amend-
ment should read;
" That I will to the best of my abilities pro- |
fect and defend the Union of these States, and
will discountenance and oppose all political
combinations and all efforts of every sort
whatsoever, having for their object the dissolution
or destruction of the same."
And I proposed also to omit the preceding
words of the oath, "that I have been truly and
loyally on the side of the United States against
those in armed rebellion against the United
States.".
My object was that there might be a class
of persons who at the beginning of this rebel-
lion were not decided in their sympathies either
way, and who had not done anything by act,
word or deed; and if they take the former
part of this oath and say so, they could not
say that they had always been loyally on the
side of the United States. And if such per-
sons, though not able to say that, are still able
lo say that since seeing that the right side was
the side of the United States they have been
on that side, and are willing to take this oath
that henceforth they will by all means in their
power discountenance any effort to break up
the Union, I think that such citizens ought to
be allowed to hold office.
There is another change in the amendment,
in the omission of the words, "and not allow
the same to be broken up and dissolved, or
the government thereof to be destroyed under
any circumstances, if in my power to prevent
it." Believing that in a great revolution it
is beyond the power of any man either to pro-
vent it or to carry it on, I think it is useless
to employ that term.
But I do not know that I should move my
amendment now for the reason that there has
been so much debate hinged upon that very
point of being loyally on the side of the United
States, this morning", and those words have
been made the foundation of so much lan-
guage of denunciation of the "usurpation
of the general government," that. lam now
very much inclined to think it is better to let
the words remain, and to exclude all who
cannot say that they are loyally on the
side of the United States and have been.
1 do not wish to place myself or the majority
of this house in a wrong attitude.
Gentlemen who have spoken upon the other
side to-day have endeavored to convey the
impression that we were defending the ad-
ministration in endeavoring to set aside the
constitution and the laws made in pursuance
thereof. They have been par excellence the
great constitutional defenders. I say that
that places us in the exact position in which
Jeff Davis and his minions and those who
sympathize with him ought to be placed.
The majority are endeavoring here by such
amendments as this to make men swear that
they will defend the State of Maryland and the
Union, that they have ever been truly loyal,
and that they are on the side of the govern-
ment of the United States.
Will any man in the minority in this house |
