speak, I think we ought to extend the same
courtesy to every member of the Convention
which was extended to my colleague yester-
day.
As to what fell from the gentleman from
Baltimore city (Mr. Abbott) in advocating his
amendment, I say that these are the most im-
portant points that will be before the Conven-
tion for its consideration during its session.
I believe that the Convention of 1850 occu-
pied six or eight weeks, and perhaps longer,
in considering the Declaration of Rights.
The gentleman forgets that, time was made
for slaves and not for freemen, particularly in
the consideration of the organic law of the
State, and these vital principles which affeet
the interest of every citizen; we have no light
to abridge the representatives of the people
here upon this floor, from discussing the ques-
tions which may so vitally affect their inter-
ests. I am here to discharge my duty as a
member of this Convention; and I desire to
do it which equal courtesy towards every member
of the Convention. I will go as far as
the farthest in protecting every man in his
rights and in the honest discharge of his duty
as a member of this body, I hope neither
the original order nor the amendment will be
adopted by the Convention. I have no doubt
that there are not three members on this floor
who will occupy over an hour in discussing
this subject; but I do not think we ought to
be abridged, particularly in the consideration
of the article now before the Convention.
Mr. DENNIS. I have the less hesitation in
opposing this order, because I feel very sure
that I will not come under the operation of
it. At the same time I am free to say that
those gentlemen who wish to speak at length
on this question or any other question, so far
as it is a reasonable time, should be allowed
that privilege. The gentleman from Balti-
more ought to remember that most of us here
are but ordinary mortals. We are but flesh
and blood. We are not like the gentleman
from Baltimore, who springs like Minerva
from the head of Jove, full armed and equip
ped at all points, at once into existence. We
come here but as men. I had supposed we
were here seeking the old principles of Gov
ernment; that we were trying to gel at the
foundations upon which the Government rests
to retrace the old beaten paths and go back
to the original lights, not as the gentleman
says the "old exploded doctrines," but the
true, original basis of the Constitution,
I affirm that this article now pending
is unknown in the history of this land.
dare say that it is now for the first time in
the history of this nation, either National or
State, proposed lo incorporate into a bill of
rights the doctrine of allegiance to the Gen
eral Government. It is a new doctrine, It is
not "exploded," Although the gentleman
has charged upon the gentleman from Prince
George's (Mr. Clarke) the exploded doctrine |
of Calhoun, whether that be so or not, the
incorporation of this article is a new thing,
heretofore unknown, now for the first time
proposed. If the gentleman from Baltimore
city (Mr. Abbott) wishes for but half an hour,
he gets all he asks; and he ought to ex-
tend to each other gentleman the same, all
that he asks. I go for free press, free speech,
and liberty.
Mr. CLARKE. I am for the first time in-
formed since coming into this Hall, that I
was accused by the gentleman from Balti-
more city (Mr. Abbott) with having enun-
ciated yesterday the doctrines of Calhoun.
The PRESIDENT. He has disclaimed any re-
flection
Mr. ABBOTT. And I did not say that he
had "enunciated them."
Mr. CLARKE, I thought he said I had an-
nounced the doctrines of Calhoun, and I wish
to explain. I expressly stated in my argu-
ment the principles I advocated; and if they
were not clearly enough expressed for the
gentleman to understand, they will be in
print. In the remarks I offered yesterday, I
made no reference to and read no quotation
from John C. Calhoun. On the contrary, I
quoted from the Debates in the Convention,
from the Federalist, from the decisions of the
Supreme Court, and from Vattel. When in
the course of my argument I readied the
point where Jackson and Calhoun divided,
where one claimed the right of secession as a
constitutional right, and when I reached the
point where Mr. Hayne and Webster departed
from each other in reference to the right of
secession, Webster claiming it to be a revolu-
tionary right, I quoted from Jackson and
Webster, and followed it up by a quotation
from Mr. Lincoln, and I went into an elabo-
rate argument in review of the propositions
advanced by John C. Calhoun.
Mr. SANDS. I submit to the Chair that the
gentleman is not in order.
Mr. CLARKE. I have made my explanation.
Mr. SANDS. I wish to state my point of
order. I think I have a right to do that.
The PRESIDENT. The gentleman will re-
duce it to writing.
Mr. SANDS (after complying). Although I
was not aware of any parliamentary law or
rule of order adopted by the Convention
requiring it, I have reduced the point of order
to writing, and it is this :
" The point of order raised is that the gen-
tleman can at this lime only rise to a personal
explanation, and as the gentleman from Bal-
timore expressly disclaimed any personal
discourtesy to the gentleman from Prince
George's, the matter is at an end. The gen-
tleman has no right at this time to explain
the mere argument of yesterday."
Mr. CLARKE. I did not rise for the pur-
pose of replying to any personal reflection ;
but I understood the gentleman from Balti-
more city to have made an assertion of fact, |
