reasonably believing your own life was in
danger, then you will be held guiltless.
Now how is it with Maryland? Is it worth
while to say that there has been an assault
upon our government; that hostile cannon
and all the enginery of war has been aimed
at the existence of your government? That
is bistory; that requires no argument; and
who will tell me that the government is tied
down to try by court and jury all who are
thus assailing it? If there are those who are
attempting to take the life of government,
then I say let the law of self-defence leave the
government at liberty to take the lives, if ne-
cessary, of those assailing it.
Now as to the trial by jury in certain cases.
In my official connection with some of the
courts I have seen enough of that, even where
it has been attempted to be resorted to, to
show me conclusively its insufficiency. Sup-
pose a party to be brought in, indicted under
our own Maryland statutes, as I have seen them
in more cases than one, with the facts as clear
as the sun in heaven. Yet it is a well known
fact that the majority sympathize with the act,
and if out of the sympathy comes a verdict of
not guilty, notwithstanding the facts are clear
as I have said, does it not demonstrate beyond
the shadow of a doubt, the utter insufficiency
of this trial by jury in times of war, and in
districts of country that are infested with
this political heresy? I have seen it; I have
had to go to the bench, occupied by agentle-
man than whom none better qualified for the
seat lives in the State of Maryland, and say to
him, Sir, this is a farce, and I will never take
part in such another.
I want to put this idea before gentlemen.
For your safety's sake, do not put a law upon
your statute book which will be constantly and
habitually violated and set at naught. For if
you let men feel that they can disobey or vio-
late one law, they will very soon take it into
their heads that they can defy other laws and
all laws. And if you catch them in the vio-
lation of some other law, they will point you,
and consistently too, to the violation of the first
law which they practiced and which you tole-
rated . I think no one loves the liberty of the
citizen more than I do; no one will go farther
to throw about individual liberty all the safe-
guards of which it is susceptible, I am will-
ing to labor and spend and be spent in this
service. But at this time, with so much of
danger banging over our country and its gov-
ernment, when this is a time in the history of
mankind to decide whether a man is capable
of self-government, no consideration on earth
will move me to support any proposition which
looks however remotely to a conflict with the
supreme power in the land.
I am willing to admit that abuses have
occurred here, as they have occurred every-
where. The world never has seen the time
when abuses have not occurred. But I say,
less are occurring this day, under the circum-
16 |
stances, than ever occurred elsewhere under
similar circumstances. And therefore, for
my part—let other gentlemen do as they
please, let them look towards putting in the
Constitution of the State any provision which
may bring you and me in conflict with the
Government of the United States and the
government at Washington, let them do on
that subject whatever they please—for me, I
never will agree to it. I love liberty, and I
want to see it preserved, not only for us and
for this nation and generation, but for all
generations to come. I want to see it pre-
served, and I believe, as I believe in my exist-
ence, that the only hope for free government
throughout the world is in the preservation
of that form of government and that very
government which our fathers left us.
Mr. CLARKE. I would not take up the time
of the House in replying to the gentleman
from Howard, (Mr. Sands,) if he had con-
tinued his interrogatories and permitted me to
reply to them as he put them. But, as he
afterwards put several questions, it becomes
necessary, being in the position I have taken
upon this question, that I should occupy the
time of the Convention for a very few mo-
ments, I do not propose to follow the gentle-
man through all the various positions he has
assumed. As to the question of allegiance,
the 4th article of this bill of rights will bring
that question up, and I do not propose to give
the gentleman now the benefit of knowing
what I may choose to say when that article
comes before the House. When it is legiti-
mately before us, I think I shall at any rate
be prepared to present my views upon it
without any prevarication, and in plain and
distinct terms. And when those views are
given, I humbly conceive they will do as much
towards the preservation of the Constitution
of the United States and the laws of Congress
passed in pursuance thereof—following the
words of the Constitution, and not as the
gentleman puts them, "under the Constitu-
tion"—as anything which may emanate from
the gentleman from Howard, (Mr. Sands.)
Now, in reference lo assuming a position
of hostility to the Constitution of the United
States, I will ask the gentleman this plain
question: Does the simple insertion into the
bill of rights of the State of Maryland of a
provision which exists in the Constitution of
the United States itself bring the govern-
ment of the State of Maryland into conflict
with the Government of the United States?
If it does, then the Government of the United
States must be in conflict with the Constitu-
tion of the United States.
Mr. SANDS. I will answer the gentleman's
question, if he will allow me. Will he re-
peat it?
Mr. CLARKE. If the insertion into the Con-
stitution of the State of Maryland of a pro-
vision copied from the Constitution of the
United States, and which assigns the same |
