shall read from them alone, supposing that
members will take it for granted that I
am responsible for the correctness of the
quotations. I shall read, having verified
them,
The first question which presents itself to
us for consideration, is whether we shall adopt
a new article in our bill of rights. I am op-
posed to it, first, because I am opposed to any
change in our bill of rights. The necessity
of haying a bill of rights at all is entirely a
mere tradition. It arose from the circum-
stances under which Magna Charta was ob-
tained, the origin of the position of right,
and all those great dogmas which have been
accepted during centuries, as standing at the
foundation of British and American liberty.
I would prefer, therefore, that in its verbiage.
in these characteristics, that this bill of rights
shall be left by us exactly as our forefathers
left it, and which they found sufficient for all
the circumstances under which they lived.
Now I confess that while this custom of
adopting declarations of rights has prevailed
generally among those States, I believe, with-
out exception, there has always to my mind
appeared to be a peculiar beauty and aptness
in the phraseology which our forefathers in
Maryland adopted in their Declaration of
Rights. There is nothing in literature which
in early life so inclined my mind to the con
sideration of these questions as the grandeur
and beauty of these sentences. And in this
day of my manhood there is nothing which,
like a trumpet, will sooner awaken my appreciation
of all that is noble in human life,
or the destinies of men and nations, than these
grand words. My preference, therefore, would
be not to change them in any manner; and
but for the obvious desire of gentlemen on
both sides to discuss this question. I should
prefer to be heard upon the general question
of adopting the bill of rights as it stood.
I am reminded here, in speaking of the
grandeur and dignity of the Declaration of
Rights under which we live, these exact statements
of principles which it embodies, oof one
or two sentences in it which I will read. Be-
cause though there are more words, more
sentences, yet in times of civil tumult, when
the foundations of society and government
are upheaved, it is the duty of statesmen to
preserve liberty by preserving these very sen-
tences that are the life-blood of liberty. So
that, no matter how the practical enjoyment
of our rights may be gratified by the circum-
stances that surround us, at least posterity
may read that, standing here in the midst of
these convulsions, some of us even approving
of the worst of these theories, we yet had the
manliness to say that the circumstances were
exceptional and we would stand firmly, as
our ancestors did, by the great, original
practical truths upon which all rights of gov-
ernment are founded. What are those great
truths? Let me read the words in which our |
forefathers expressed them so clearly and so
strongly.
"All government of right originates from
the people, is founded In compact only, and
instituted solely tor the good of the whole,"
" The people of this State ought to have the
sole and exclusive right of regulating the in-
ternal government and police thereof." " That
no power of suspending laws, or the execu-
tion of laws, unless by or derived from the
Legislative. ought to be exercised or allowed."
'' That every free man, for any injury done to
him in his person or property, ought to have
remedy by the course of the law of the land,
and ought to have justice and right, freely
without sale, fully without any denial, and
speedily without delay, according to the
law of the land." "That the trial of facts
where they arise, is one of the greatest securi-
ties of the lives, liberties and estate of the
people." " That in all criminal prosecutions
every man hath a right to be informed of the
accusation against him . . . to be confronted
with the witnesses against him . . . and to a
speedy trial by an impartial jury." "That
excessive bail ought not to be required, nor
excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual
punishment inflicted by the courts of law."
"That all warrants, without oath or affirm-
ation, to search suspected places, or to seize
any person or property are grievous and op-
pressive." "That standing armies are dangerous
to liberty." And, " That in all cases
and at all times the military ought to be un-
der strict subordination to, and control of
the civil power."
Sir, standing on the brink, and looking in-
to the horrid chasm which three years of
strife have made among us, these words come
to us like echoes from the tomb, like far-off
distant voices, full of truth and beauty; but
which, in view of the circumstance surround-
ing us, we recognize as having no practical
significance, except that they existed long ago
among better men than we. Still, if we have
lust the substance, I for one would preserve
the shadow. If we will not exact for our
people the practical enjoyment of these rights,
I for on would at least declare them. I
would have it written that we still claim
these rights and privileges, although the fact
be that we are robbed of them.
Now, sir, in proceeding to the actual consideration
of the only practical proposition
here, whether this clause shall be introduced
into our bill of rights or no, the discus-
sion presents ilself to my mind in three
aspects, and I shall proceed to argue it accord-
ingly. I shall argue it, firstly, upon those
considerations which grow out of the terms
of the proposed clause itself; secondly upon
those considerations which grow out of the
doctrine of Federal allegiance, which is stated
for the first time in Maryland, and which I
hold to be a false doctrine; and, thirdly,
upon those considerations, independently of |
