this law. In the war of 1812, I believe, and
in the war with Mexico, the federal govern-
ment called upon the State for troops, not like
it does now, but through its executive officer
and the State then got volunteers in the Mex-
ican war; but in the war of 1812 it called out
its militia. And there is a large class of your
citizens who say that was the proper way for
our government to have done, and that it
was a violation of State's rights to draft di-
rectly; that the federal government ought to
have called upon the several States for their
respective quotas, and those States ought to
have supplied them to the federal government
Now if the federal government were to
call upon the governor of the State of Mary-
land for a portion of its militia, would these
men be reached at all? You could not get this
exempted class of citizens into the service even
of the United States. It was said last night
that the federal government would cure this
difficulty; that they would reach this class of
our citizens, and there was no necessity for
us to endanger the passage of the constitution
by refusing this concession. I think it is un-
manly and mean to throw upon the shoulders
of the federal government that which you are
unwilling to stand up to yourselves, if you
are not willing to stand up to a principle
yourself, it is unmanly to take shelter behind
the shoulders of the federal government. If
it is right for the federal government to call
upon this class of citizens in times of distress
and necessity, to enforce its laws, then it is
right for you to recognize that principle in
your constitution. If it is improper in mor-
als and in politics for a State to call upon all
classes of its citizens, without distinction, to
render military service in times of need, then
yon should not throw upon the shoulders of
the federal government the duty of calling
these men out.
Now the federal government has not exemp-
ted this class of citizens. Under the draft
which is to take place on the fifth of Septem-
ber no one is exempted, not even ministers of
the gospel are exempted. The only conces-
sion the federal government makes is this—
that this class of persons who have conscien-
tious scruples about performing military duty,
those ministers of the gospel who have some
conscientious scruples about violating their
vows, are placed in the hospital service of the
country. Now I think it is very improper to
make the distinction proposed here, and put
it in the fundamental law of the State, there-
by taking away from the legislature of Mary-
land all power to change it. Suppose you
establish a military system in the State of
Maryland. Your militia, to be worth one
cent, will require these men to be drilled, to
be called out once a week, or once a month
at least. What will be the result? You force
a large class of men away from their work,
who can illy spare the time, make them go
through military evolutions, discipline them |
in the art of bearing arms; while you exempt
another large class, and leave them free to go
and make money, and carry on their business,
without even paying a fine. is that just?—
Yet this section that you are about to pass
contemplates this very thing. You compel a
large class of our citizens to come into this
thing; you make them discipline themselves
by meeting in companies and in brigades.—
And then yon exempt entirely another large
class. Is that equal-handed justice" Is it
not fair that you should treat all your citizens
alike? Should yon mate any distinction be-
tween them ?
Gentlemen talk about endangering the pas-
sage of the constitution, I say this is a two-
edged sword; it will cut both ways. Do yon
suppose men whose families are dependent
upon their efforts for support, are so stolid
and stupid as not to see the injustice of this
matter? It is a dangerous thing to let it be-
come known in the settled portions of this
State that this injustice is done to a large
class of citizens, and they will vote against
your constitution. I believe there are num-
bers in the town of Hagerstown, who, if they
once understood this gross injustice, would
not touch your constitution. I say it is a
dangerous thing. Be governed by principle;
do what is right and just, and do not bind
your legislation to a miserable policy, that
does not bottom itself upon firm and just
legislation. It is a miserable thing at best,
and in the end is bound to fail. Let all your
legislation be enlightened; let it he founded
on just and fair principles, principles that no
man can gainsay, that will stand the test. Any
other species of legislation is false, and is
bound to do more injury than good in the
end.
The question was upon the amendment of
Mr. NEGLEY to the first section,
Upon this question Mr, NEGLEY called for
the yeas and nays, and they were ordered,
The question was then taken by yeas and
nays, and resulted—yeas 11, nays 48—as
follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Belt, Billingsley, Dent, Hen-
kle, Lansdale, Lee, Marbury, Mayhugh, Mil-
ler, Negley, Smith, of Carroll—11.
Nay a—Messrs. Goldsborough, President ;
Abbott, Annan, Baker, Barron, Blackiston,
Brown, Carter, Clarke, Cunningham, Cush-
ing, Daniel, Davis, of Washington, Ecker,
Farrow, Galloway, Greene, Hebb, Hoffman,
Hollyday, Hopkins, Hopper, Horsey, Keefer,
Kennard, Larsh, Markey, McComas, Mullikin,
Parker, Pugh, Purnell, Ridgely, Russell,
Sands, Schley, Schlosser, Scott, Smith, of
Worcester, Sneary, Stirling, Stockbridge,
Swope, Sykes, Thomas, Todd, Wickard,
Wooden—48.
The amendment was accordingly rejected.
Mr. LANSDALE moved to amend by inserting
the word " white " before the words " male
citizens." „, |
