Mr. PUGH. Is not an act of the Legisla-
ture, " the manner prescribed by law ?"
Mr. CLARKE. My amendment makes it
conform with Article 28 of the old bill of
rights. Unless gentlemen upon the other
side can show some reason for changing the
phraseology, I prefer the original phraseology.
I think, there is a material difference. " The
manner prescribed by law." What is the
law? Who is to pass the law? But it is
unnecessary for me to make any remarks
upon the amendment until gentlemen upon
the other side show a reason for the change.
I should like to understand their construc-
tion of the article as reported by the commit-
tee; and what extent the change of phrase-
ology reported by the committee is under
stood to change the effect of the article.
Mr. SMITH, of Carroll. I do not desire to
make any argument with regard to the mat-
ter, but merely to submit the fact that this
change makes the article correspond literally
with the third amendment to the Constitu-
tion of the United States. I presume that
was the principal reason why the change was
adopted. The language is not materially
changed, but it is made to correspond with
the third amendment to the Constitution of
the United States.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. Without presuming at
all to speak for the committee by whom this
was reported, not knowing their reasons, it
occurs to me that there is a palpable reason
for the modification. We are a part of the
United States. Soldiers are raised and main-
tained by the National Government. The
question has been raised within the last few
sad years, of the right of the United States
Government to march its troops across the
soil of a State, or to take possession of the
property in a State for the necessary use of
the soldiers of the nation. The amendment,
as proposed by the gentleman from Prince
George's, (Mr. Clarke), makes that entirely
a subject of State legislation. This makes
it broader; in " the manner prescribed by
law," a law either of Congress or of the
State. It occurs to me that that is a sufficient
reason for making the modification It makes
our own Declaration of Rights conform to
the amendments to the Constitution of the
United States, and provides that there may
be a prescription by the law of Congress as
well as by the law of the State. For that
reason I prefer the article as it stands.
Mr. CLARKE. My own idea and under-
standing is, that as we are making this pro-
vision for oar State Constitution, I shall be
governed in my vote, here as in all cases in
the formation of our State Constitution, by
this fundamental principle: The Constitu-
tion of the United States is the law which
regulates the action of the Federal Govern
ment. Hence when it is provided in the
Federal Constitution that troops shall only
be quartered ''in the manner prescribed by |
law," the Constitution determines the rule
which is to govern Congress. Hence the
United States, by act of Congress, has a
right to determine the mode and manner in
which the soldiers acting under its authority
shall be quartered in time of war in the
States. I do not dispute that proposition.
The law of Congress, passed under or in pur-
suance of the Constitution, is the mode and
manner by which it is to be regulated. We
may put what provision we choose in our
Declaration of Rights. We have the power
—not the legal right or authority—to say
that they shall not be quartered as Congress
may prescribe by law. What would that be
worth? Not the paper on which it is writ-
ten. It would be a nullity. Congress within
the sphere of its powers, has the right; and
you may put what you choose in your State
Constitution, and it is of no avail whatever.
Are we here to determine how Congress is
to regulate the quartering of troops? Not
at all. We are regulating simply our in-
ternal police, that " no soldier shall, in time
of peace, be quartered in any house without
the consent of the owner, and in time of war
in such manner only as the Legislature shall
direct.'' Has that anything at all to do with
the United States troops? This provision is
only intended to meet the case of State troops,
only those troops which may be acting under
the authority of the executive officer of this
State, or of my friend from Baltimore county,
(Mr. Berry), the Adjutant General of the
State. We are only providing with respect
to State laws. The Constitution of the Uni-
ted States provides that in case of sudden in-
vasion or the breaking out of war, the States
have the right to call out their troops. This
provision is merely to regulate the internal
police of the State, the management of the
State troops under State authority. I prefer,
therefore, to hold on to the old form, and say
" in such manner only as the Legislature shall
direct," so that we may get rid of the very
construction which the gentleman from Balti-
more city (Mr. Stockbridge) places upon this
article. Gentlemen upon this floor are con-
tinually confounding the fact that the States
are acting, as I attempted the other day to
argue, in one sphere, and the General Gov-
ernment in another; that the powers are
given in the United States Constitution for
Congress and the Federal Government.
Those powers are full and ample and com-
plete, whatever provision you choose to put
in your State Constitution to conflict with
them. We have no power by the State Con-
stitution to prescribe the mode and manner,
We are here dealing with the State troops
merely, without any reference to the troops
of the United States. We are declaring the
principles which are to govern us in matters
of our own State, and nothing more; mat-
ters which are under the authority and con-
trol of State officers, matters of police regu- |
