States to which the gentleman from Balti-
more city (Mr. Thomas) referred, the General
Government may send its troops into a State
for the purpose of guarantying a republican
form of government. They will then be sub-
ject to the laws of Congress. During the
very same period there may be State troops
co-operating with the troops of the General
Government, in order to maintain the re-
publican form of government. They may
not be placed at all under the authority of
the Federal Government. You may have
within the State both the executive of the
State attempting by the State forces to main-
tain its republican form of government, and
the President of the United States with the
troops of the United States attempting to
maintain the republican form of government.
I hold that the troops of the State, so far as
they are brought under the authority of the
United States or of the State, are subject to
the laws respectively of the Federal Govern-
ment and of the State. Gentlemen will not
pretend for a moment to say that when troops
come into a State under the authority of the
Federal Government for the purpose of main-
taining a republican form of Government,
repelling invasion or suppressing insurrec-
tion, that immediately and forthwith the
State laws operate and they come under State
laws. We have the very case now before us.
I believe the present call is made to a certain
extent on account of threatened invasion.
The President of the United States is calling
for these troops. There is a period before
they are put under the authority of the Uni-
ted States; and this provision of the bill of
rights is to meet the case of providing for
those troops during that period. So soon as
that period passes, and they come under the
authority of the Federal Government, this
article ceases too apply to them; and it makes
no difference whether they were called out
by the President or by the executive of the
State.
Mr. THOMAS. I will state as an additional
reason for the adoption of the article reported
by the committee that it is no new thing.
By reference to the " American Constitu-
tion'' it will be seen that the section here re-
ported in this exact language is contained in
the Constitutions of Maine, New Hampshire,
Rhode Island. Connecticut, New Jersey, Penn-
sylvania, Delaware, Kentucky, Tennessee,
Ohio, Indiana, Mississippi, Illinois, Alabama,
Missouri, Florida, Arkansas, Iowa, Cailifor-
nia, Oregon and Kansas; leaving out the
term "Legislature," and putting in the ex-
act phraseology used in this article, " except
in the manner prescribed by law."
Mr. THRUSTON. I will suggest an illustra-
tion to show the effect, of this language and
how appropriate it is. Suppose the case of
a soldier in the United States who is here by
virtue of the law of the United States. He
is here by virtue of the law of the State of |
Maryland, because the law of the United
States is the law of the State of Maryland,
with regard to that particular case. Therefore
I say the words "by law" cover all cases,
and I do not see bow the section can possi-
bly be changed without injury.
Mr. JONES, of Somerset. I concur in the
views of the gentleman from Allegany, (Mr.
Thruston.) The language as it stands cov-
ers nil cases, and in my judgment is eminent-
ly proper. I should dislike any amendment
to it, for I prefer the section as it stands.
The amendment was rejected.
Article 31 was read as follows :
Art. 31. That no person, except regular
soldiers, mariners and marines, in the ser-
vice of this State, or militia when in actual
service, ought in any case be subject to or
punishable by martial law.
Mr. PETER. I move to amend by striking
out the word " ought" and inserting in place
thereof the word "shall." Martial law is
made for the soldier. Civil law is for the
community. The soldier in becoming sub-
ject to martial law, sacrifices for the benefit
of the citizen many of the rights which per-
tain to the citizen. I hold it to be a princi-
ple that the citizen does not therefore sacrifice
any of those rights for the benefit of the
soldier. I bold it to be well-substantiated
law, that under all circumstances, excepting
the case of direct interference upon the part
of a citizen with military affairs, he is enti-
tled to a fair and impartial trial according to
the laws of the land in which he lives. I do
not think in asserting our rights, that we
should leave this merely expressed by the
word "ought;" but it should be expressed
in such terms as admit of no qualification.
We should express it as one of our rights,
that we are entitled to be tried by the laws
under which we live; that we have not sac-
rificed our rights or given them up to the
military power of the government to rule us.
We are not required to be deprived by laws
fixed for the purpose of governing those who
have given up their rights for the benefit of
the community generally, of our rights to be
governed by civil law. I hope therefore that
the amendment will prevail.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. CLARKE submilted the following
amendment:
Strike out all after the word " that" in
the first line, and insert the words " no per-
son shall be held to answer for any charge
or crime before a Court Martial or Military
tribunal, except in cases arising in the land
and naval forces of the United States, or in
the militia of the State when in actual ser-
vice in time of war or public danger.
Mr. CLARKE. This is substantially the
same amendment I offered when another arti-
cle of this bill of rights was under considera-
tion; and the gentleman from Baltimore city,
not now in his seat, (Mr. Stirling) then said |
