that with all the ability which characterized
the most part, if not the whole of it, it was
to a very great extent simply a re-argument
of what we have heard before in the argument
upon the bill of rights, which took lip so
much of the time of the convention. This
whole question of the conduct of the admin-
istration, of its supposed usurpations, of
slavery, of arrests, of personal liberty, was
all gone over upon the discussion of those
articles. And the question of allegiance, so
far as it is involved in the discussion of this
proposition now before the convention, was
fully discussed and absolutely decided in the
fourth article of the bill of rights. I have
heard a great many remarks made in the
course of this debate, with regard to the
meaning of some of these propositions which
I think were completely answered in the
course of that debate. What is meant by
allegiance to the United States? What is
meant by the government of the United
States?
Without undertaking to answer those ar-
guments, because I think they have already
been answered in this house, I mean merely
to explain to the convention what is my un-
derstanding of the proposition embraced in
this amendment.
So far as the first part of it is concerned, I
suppose nobody has any objection. So far as
regards all these provisions contained in the
present constitution, I have heard no objec-
tion, except the theoretic objection of the
gentleman from Prince George's (Mr. Belt,)
which goes to the extent of abolishing the
whole system of oaths. I suppose any mem-
ber of this convention who has cheerfully
and freely taken the obligations of the oath
imposed upon members of this convention,
will have no important objection to the former
part of this amendment, which concludes
with the words, "rebellion against the United
States, or the lawful authorities thereof." I
suppose therefore that the whole argument
rests upon the remaining part of the oath.
What is that portion of the amendment?
I will read it :
"But that I have been truly and loyally
on the side of the United States against those
in armed rebellions against the United States"-
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 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 dissolution or destruc-
tion."
That is the point that is practically before
us. That is the part I understand to be ob
jected to. It is objected to in the first place
although the objection really applies as mud
to what precedes it as to this, that it is ex post |
facto. What is ex post facto within the mean-
ing of the constitution of the United States,
or any legal definition of that term? It
means that you shall not punish a man fora
crime that did not exist before the time when
you pass the law by which you punish him.
It never has been interpreted to mean a pro-
hibition upon retroactive laws. Everybody
knows that a law enacted with regard to any
subject, operates upon contracts already
made, unless these contracts are expressly
excluded from its operation. If a law is
passed applicable to a ease pending in court,
it applies to that case, unless that case is
specially excluded from its provisions.
But what have we to do with ex post facto
legislation? We are assembled here, the rep-
resentatives of the people of the State, sent
here to frame its organic law. We have the
constitutional right, qualified only by the
moral duty to exercise that constitutional
right properly, to prescribe whatever qualifi-
cations for the exercise of the elective fran-
chise we please, and to prescribe whatever
qualifications for holding office, and what-
ever oath of office we please to prescribe.
There is no doubt whatever that if this
convention undertook to create a property
qualification, which would absolutely dis-
franchise persons now admitted to suffrage
in this State, whatever might be said of the
hardship of such a provision, it would be
absolutely legal and constitutional; because
it is the universal and unrestricted right of
the people to fix the elective franchise and
the right of holding office as they please.
What is the oath of office? and upon what
theory does it proceed? My friend from
Prince George's (Mr. Belt) went largely this
evening into the theory that the people were
the source of power, and that the fitness of a
person for holding office must be judged of by
the people. Certainly; and the people in fix-
ing the constitution say what in general terms
they regard to be absolutely necessary for the
fitness of all persons to hold office. That is
just as much a declaration of the people in
regard to what they conceive to be fitness for
holding office, as generally applied, as when
expressed directly at the ballot box in regard
to a particular individual.
What are the general terms? First, that
the man should take an obligation to perform
the duties of the office he is called upon to
exercise. Next, that the man should be of
such a character, and possess such principles
, generally as make him a fit person to govern
the community over which he is called to
preside. What is the principle upon which,
although somewhat modified from time to
time, and still more modified by this conven-
tion a man is required to declare his belief
in the Christian religion, by many State con-
stitutions? It is because it is supposed that
as the people over whom he is to be placed is
a Christian people, no person holding articles |
