of religious faith in entire antagonism to the
general sentiment of the whole community
can properly exercise jurisdiction over them
as a chief magistrate. His sympathies and
feelings are supposed to be so far alienated
from the sympathies and feelings of the citi-
zens of the State and the whole groundwork
of its institutions, that he cannot be a fit man
to exercise the power of government over
that people. It is perfectly true that if you
attempt to go into the differences which di-
vide the parties or the sects in the communi-
ty, where the people may honestly differ in
some points without differing in all, that
would be a distinction which would not neces-
sarily conflict with the proper performance of
official duties. And if the oath were obnox-
ious to the charge made by the gentleman
from Somerset this morning, that it is in vio-
lation of the constitution, or if it were in
conflict with customs of society or with party
feelings, it would beoffensive.
This brings me back to the discussion what
this section means; whether the things placed
here are such things as are necessary to be
placed in the organic law in order to secure
to the people rulers who can govern them
under circumstances calculated to promote
peace and order in the State, We must look
facts in the face, as to the condition of things
in which we are. I do not ask any man to
swear here that he has not sympathized with
anything. I do not ask him to swear that
he believes the war is the way to restore the
government. I do not ask him to believe that
the abolitionist brought on the war, or that
the secessionists brought on the war. I do
not ask him to say whether the war is prop-
erly or improperly prosecuted. I do not ask
him to say whether it is prosecuted upon the
same principles with which it was commenced,
or whether those principles have been vio-
lated. I only ask him when these different
principles and policies have culminated in
hostilities, when two governments, whether
in fact or in right, have been fighting on the
field of battle for three years with two oppo-
site standards, to say whether he is on the
one side of that contest, or whether he is on
the other.
I care not what may be a man's feelings,
go far as the legal question is concerned; I
care not whether he holds that the war is de-
fensible or indefensible; I care not what he
considers the cause of the hostilities; there
has been a constant waging of war between
the de facto government on the one side, and
the government of the United States on the
other; and I say there is a broad line of dis-
tinction, and everybody must stand upon one
side or the other, or he cannot be fit to exer-
cise the powers of government over any com-
munity on the one side or the other.
Gentlemen seem to have some doubt as to
what the word "loyal" means. Can there
be any doubt about it? What does it mean? |
It means that a man obeys the law and the
government under which he lives; that he is
obedient. Can a man lie obedient to the law
and the government under which he lives, if
he docs not recognize at all the government
under which he lives, and if his feelings, and
wishes, and hope's, and prayers, are all on the
side of some other government which he
wishes to destroy the government, under
which he lives? What sort of obedience to
the laws is that? What sort of loyalty is it?
There is a very simple definition of 'be
term loyalty. If a man is a citizen of this
country, he is entitled to exercise all its priv-
ileges. But if be has by his own act and by his
own will placed himself outside of that citi-
zenship, he has no claim to exercise the func-
tions of government. Taken practically,
what does it mean? There are in this coun-
try two representative banners) one of which
is the flag under which we were born, and
the other is the revolutionary standard which
has been raised against it. I ask if there is
a man in this house, if there is a man in this
State, if there is a man in this country that
does not. instinctively feel that be is in favor
of one flag or the other? is there a man,
when be sees one or the other floating in
proud grandeur in the breezes of heaven,
that does not feel coming back responsive
from his heart the electric throb of sympathy
with the one or the other? He must be
something more or less than a man who has
not some such feeling.
The people have no difficulty with the sub-
ject. You may go among this population in
Maryland, and if you can only get close
enough to know, there is no doubt whatever
upon which side they are. There are a certain
class of them who regard the flag of that
government under which they lire, and
which gentlemen here profess to be bound to
obey, as the flag of a foreign nationality to
which they owe no obligation. They take
pains to style it Mr Lincoln's flag, and as a
flag under which they are not willing even
to walk when it floats over the pavement
over which they are obliged to tread. They
recognize the flag upon the other side as the
"bounty bluebanner" with which their sysmpathies
are entwined, as it waves over the
field of conflict, as the flag of Jeff. Davis,
which they are proud enough to honor,
whenever they can honor it in a sufficiently
low voice not to beheard.
My friend from Prince George's (Mr. Belt,)
in his argument to-night; has made a refer-
ence to history which illustrates this whole
tiling. He referred to the declarations of
Chatham, and Burke, and Fox, at the time
of our revolution. Dues not everybody know
that the Earl of Chatham died almost at his
place in the house of lords making a speech
against the recognition of American inde-
pendence? Does any man suppose that the
Earle of Chatham would have bad any hesita- |
