on elective franchise, has been made the
ground-work upon which has been based
another provision contained in this report of
the committee on the schedule, and which is
more objectionable than the oath which was
incorporated in the article on the elective
franchise. That was but the beginning of
the end.
Now, so far as I am concerned, I am free to
confess here that I did not enter this conven-
tion with any political prejudices. I did not
come into this convention for any other pur-
pose than to make such an organic law as
would be acceptable to the people at large.
It was the remark of a heathen philosopher,
and it is applicable to the present day, " Sci
se tuum." I know that of all the problems
presented to the human mind, that is the most
difficult of solution. The scriptures tell us
that "the heart of man is deceitful above all
things, and desperately wicked," So far as
regards my own individual feelings and
wishes, I came here under the impression I
have always entertained in regard to these political
exacerbations, political excitement, po-
litical vituperation and political prosecution,
And were I to-day in the same position with
the honorable gentleman from Baltimore city
(Mr. Stirling,) in this convention, I assure
you that I would be guilty of no act which
would be calculated to oppress my fellow
citizens.
In all governments, from the very founda-
tion of society to the present period, changes
and mutations have taken place. And there
never has existed a government even anterior
to the light of revelation, but what it was
the duty of the ruler as well as of the citizen
to adhere to the principles of that government.
And when ever there has been a de-
parture from the established laws of the land
from the established organization of any gov-
ernment, you will find that is has always
sooner or later eventuated in revolution.
If we take for instance the history of Rome.
It was founded by Romulus. It was a
legal government, and under five successive
reigns it flourished and advanced in pow-
er and conquest, and everything connect-
ed with the peculiar organization of that
government. But upon the accession of Tar-
quin, when contrary to every principle of
justice and every principle of morals, there
was an outrage offered to a Roman matron,
in the conduct of Sextus towards Lucretia,
what was the consequence? It eventuated
in the downfall of Rome, and the expulsion of
the Tarquin family from the kingdom. It
was an immaterial point, it is true, in the
history of Rome, as compared with the pecu-
liar organization under which it has suc-
ceeded and flourished. But when we take
into consideration that it was an outrage to
an individual, to a female, we will recollect
that Brutus took the dagger all reeking with
blood, and swore that it should never be re- |
turned to its scabbard until the liberties of
Rome were achieved. And then it followed
that the kingly government of Rome was
abolished. And so it will he with any free
government.
Here we have lived under a government of
equal laws, and equal justice, and equal rights.
Here we have been taught to believe that eter-
nal vigilance is the price of liberty, and that
public men and public measures were the le-
gitimate subjects of criticism. Does it fol-
low, of course, because we do not believe in
the policy of this government, because we do
not believe that that policy is calculated to
advance the interest and prosperity of the
country in which we live—does it follow that
we are rebels? Does it follow, as a necessary
consequence, because we do not sustain the
government in all its acts, do not sustain this
convention in all its outrages, that we must
necessarily berebellions? Does it follow that
because we believe you have done us in-
justice, that you have deprived us of that
which did not belong to you, but which was
ours by all the guarantees of the laws and the
constitution of the country; because we can-
not sustain you in all these acts of outrage,
does it follow that you are to pass test oaths
here, by which you are to perpetuate your
power, representing as you do but one-third
of the population of this State; perpetuating
your power by putting oaths to us which are
offensive, which are contrary to the constitu-
tion and laws of the land, and which are con-
trary to the very principle of the very law
under which this convention is assembled.
Why do you propose to embody this test
oath in your constitution, and to make it a
part of your constitution? Why do you re-
quire the citizens of Maryland to take that
oath before the constitution has been submit-
ted to the people for their ratification or re-
jection? What does the constitution of the
State of Maryland, under which we are liv-
ing, say in regard to this oath? It says
that we shall true allegiance bear to the State
of Maryland, and support the constitution
and laws of the United States. What was
the oath embodied in the article on the elec-
tive franchise? That you shall bear true al-
legiance to the State of Maryland, and that
you shall support the laws and constitution
of the United States. Was not that enough ?
Was it necessary that the law should be re-
trospective, that it should look back? What
says Mr. Lincoln's amnesty proclamation ?
And yet under this provision, if any man
comes back to Maryland who has been in
the Southern army and takes the oath of al-
legiance to this government he is not entitled
to vote. If any gentleman in the city of
Baltimore was found on the 19th of April,
1861, under the excitement of the moment,
with a musket upon his shoulder for the pur-
pose of driving back, as he believed, the in-
vaders of the soil of Maryland, can he con- |
