in Constitution making; for the simple fact
that even if you should put a proviso in that
"everything contained in this article shall he
construed as giving to a State the right to
secede from the Federal Union," it would be
null and void. A State, by its bill of rights,
has no power over the matter one way or the
other. The power of the State is controlled
by the Constitution of the United States, and
under that I say she has no right to secede.
I shall vote against this proviso for the reason
that to attach such a proviso as that to my
amendment would, in my judgment, be an
intimation that this Convention does not un-
derstand the first principles of constitutional
law. I vote "no,"
The amendment to the amendment was
accordingly adopted.
The question recurred upon the amendment
as amended, and, being taken, it was rejected.
Article 4 was stated to be still open to
amendment.
Mr. BRISCOE. I move to amend article 4
by striking out the word "paramount," so
that it will then read :
"The Constitution of the United States,
and the laws made in pursuance thereof being
the supreme law of the land, every citizen
of this State owes allegiance to the Constitu-
tion and Government of the United States,
and is not bound by any law or ordinance of
this State in contravention or subversion
thereof. "
I had expected, Mr. President, in the course
of the discussion upon the provisions of this
article, to have had the pleasure this morn-
ing of listening to some of the reasons that
might be assigned by gentlemen upon the
other side of this question, in advocacy of
this new doctrine of paramount allegiance to
the Government of the United States. After
the very able and elaborate argument of my
friend from Prince George's (Mr. Clarke) so
thoroughly exhausting, it seemed to me, the
whole question involved in this article, I had
hoped some gentleman would have entered
upon this discussion and endeavored, if possi-
ble, to do away with the impressions which
that argument was well calculated to make.
I had hoped that the chairman of this Com-
mittee upon the Declaration of Rights, after
having presented to this Convention, as I
consider, a very novel and startling doctrine,
one for the first time heard in this State,
would at least have deigned to enlighten, us
as to the reasons which induced him to come
to so give a conclusion,
I do not rise for the purpose of entering
into an extended discussion of this question.
But I have been educated in that school of
politics which recognizes very marked lines
of distinction between the powers of our Na-
tional Government and those of our State
Governments. I have been taught—it may
have been improperly taught; I may have
been educated in the wrong school, and may |
have read the wrong books—but before I
could bring myself to the conclusion to affirm
a proposition of this character, I should have
to ask some gentleman upon the other side to
give us more light upon this subject, and I
am sorry that it has not been given to us. I
regret, for one, that, if the proud old State of
Maryland is now, tor the first lime, to become
a pioneer in this cause, tending to the down-
fall of States' rights, and the total overthrow
of State sovereignty, these new and modern
lights have not given us some of the reasons
upon which they predicate their ground of
action in this respect. As a Marylander,
proud of the past history of my State, proud
of its origin in the days of the Revolution,
proud of its progress since that lime, I, for
one, am not willing, without far more delib-
erate consideration, to lay down here all the
pretensions of what I conceive to be the very
foundation of her liberties.
This question I believe to be one which
agitated the giant minds of our Republic.
And the mighty mind of Maryland—the great
Mr. Pinckney—in that discussion which first
arose as to the lines that divided the State
from the National Government, upon the ad-
mission of Missouri into this Union. so clearly
and so incontestably explained this question
of State power and State sovereignty, that in
my simplicity, I had thought it was placed
beyond the reach of argument. Now, if we
will refer, for a moment, to the issues and
questions involved in the admission of Mis-
souri into the Union, when this great power
of paramount authority by the Government
of the United States was then for the first
time attempted to be exercised, as lo the State
I of Missouri, we may probably gather some
light upon the subject. The doctrine which
seems to he covered by this proposition of
the committee, is clearly at war with the
views Mr. Pinckney then expressed, is
clearly at war with what was then considered
as authority, and which I think since that
time has been considered as the great argu-
ment upon this question; an argument
which, I believe, was then designated as the
great response to the argument of that school
of politicians in our country that claimed for
the Government of the United States author'
ity utterly at war, and inconsistent with the
rights of the States. Upon that occasion Mr.
Pinckney, in language more beautiful and
more conclusive than any I could hope to
employ, so clearly put this question before
us, that I ask permission to read it to this
House.
Mr. Pinckney tells us, in regard to this
question of the power of the National Gov-
ernment, that a recognition of the paramount
authority of the Government of the United
States to touch the sovereignty of a State, to
mar the fair proportions of a State, was but
opening the door for restraints upon her fu-
ture legislation; that the recognition of that |
