the other points, which grow out of the cir-
cumstance that the adoption of this clause has
a tendency to bolster up that doctrine of con-
solidation, which, upon its own merits, I am
opposed lo as a proposition to be supported
in this county,
Firstly, in regard to the objections that arise
upon the mere terms of this proposed article.
"The Constitution of the United States,
and the laws made in pursuance thereof, be-
ing the supreme law of the land, every citizen
of this State owes paramount allegiance to
the Constitution and Government of the
United States, and is not bound by any law
or ordinance of this State in contravention or
subversion thereof."
The first objection is that this doctrine is a
novelty. Well, all novelties are not to be re-
jected of course; but there is a presumption
against a novelty which is in itself essential
and important to its consideration. Radical
changes always have to run the gauntlet of
an opposition upon the ground that they are
radical, and that they are new. Any propo-
sition offered here which would comport with
a declaration already in the bill of rights,
would not be open to this objection. But a
thing never in the bill of rights before, a
process which our forefathers never thought
it necessary to undergo when declaring the
principles of the Government which they es-
tablished, of course it raises that natural
philosophical opposition which always at-
taches to every thing that is novel, especially
when it is important. I submit that this is a
novelty heretofore unknown in Maryland;
one which nobody in tins State has ever be
fore dreamed of; one which never entered
into the imagination of any of the great
names that helped frame the Constitution
under which our forefathers and we have
hitherto lived. It never elite-red into the imagination
of any statesman heretofore, that
it was necessary to put into the Declaration
of Rights, in which we arrogate to ourselves
all possible political powers and liberties, a
section which practically enslaves us to an-
other power. Personally, I have just precisely
the objections to the insertion of this new
article that I would have to the insertion of
any other novel and radical change.
Another objection is that it is out of place
here. This is a declaration of rights, and a
declaration of rights in all the States is
merely a method by which we preserve and
re-assert the old foundations of liberty in
Great Britain: it is only the way in which
we endorse the action of our forefathers in
in wresting the great charter of liberty from
the crown. It is nothing more than that;
it is not essential, for beyond doubt, by force
of common law and custom, we are entitled
to all these rights without this declaration of
them. Simply because the barons wrested
from King John what is known as Magna
Charta simply because it is the method |
which our forefathers in England thought fit
to adopt in order to make a solemn claim lo
their rights and powers, simply for that
reason have we followed it in Maryland. We
adopt this as our forefathers did, not to de-
fine our political position as a people, or
what we owe to any other people, but simply
to arrogate ourselves rights, without being
precisely in the position of the barons who
wrested the acknowledgement of their rights
from King John. We do it lo arrogate to
ourselves our rights; not to state King John's
rights, or what ie due to George III, but
what belongs to us; not what is clue to the
Government at Washington, but what we as-
sert and claim as belonging lo the Govern-
ment at Annapolis. That is the proper
foundation of a bill of rights. Therefore I
hold that this proposed article is out of place
here. We stand just where our forefathers
Stood when they wrested from the crown the
acknowledgment of these great principles.
To make this change, therefore, is lo reverse
the whole previous policy of this State.
And where is the necessity for it? Is there
anything in our federal condition which
makes it necessary? Is there anything in our
State condition which makes it necessary?
The position which a political community, a
State, occupies upon a question of this sort
strikes my mind as being very obvious. We
sit herein no manner in reference to our posi-
tion towards the Federal Government. We
are here as a State, representing within cer-
tain restricted limits what may be called the
sovereignty of the people of this State. We
are here to frame a Constitution, a form of
government, and from the mere tact of meet-
ing here under the circumstances under which
we are convened, and from the nature of the
powers entrusted to us by the people, our
duly is to arrogate to Maryland every pos-
sible power which consistently with truth
and logic we can arrogate to her. The duty
of a State is like what has been said of the
duty of a judge; "A food judge will am-
plify his jurisdiction." You will not find a
court which is properly imbued with the
principles that ought to regulate courts of
justice, that will deny itself powers which it
can reasonably claim. So I hold, by analogy,
that no State, no political community, existing
in a federative system with other States,
should be willing of its own accord, without
invitation from any other power, to surrender
in the declaration of its rights and privileges
what is indeed the very life-blood and essence
of those rights and privileges.
Now there is no danger but that the Fed-
eral Government will claim enough. There
is no danger that the central power will not
centralize sufficiently; that they have always
dune. And standing here at this day us we do,
right in the presence of an assumption of
federal power such as no man in our previous
history ever dreamed of, a power which from |
