the utter falsity of that position. But there
are other authorities.
The gentleman from Prince George's (Mr.
Clarke) refers to the letter of Luther Martin, but
he read from one part of that letter only, and
did not read from all parts of it. Why, sir,
the very letter of Luther Martin, to which he
refers, and which will be found at page 382,
Elliott's Debates, vol. 1, proves just exactly
the contrary to what the gentleman asserted
it to prove, in relation to State sovereignty.
And there was no man, of those in the Con-
vention that framed the Constitution, who
opposed its adoption with more bitterness and
more vindictive hate than Luther Martin.
He, followed it up into the ball of the General
Assembly of Maryland, where was assembled
the Convention of the people of Maryland,
that adopted this Constitution, with a long
and elaborate argument to prove its utter
worthlessness in relation to the different de-
partments of the government which that
Constitution established. See what he says
in relation to the clause in the Constitution
in reference to treason.
"By the third section of this article; it is
declared that treason against the United States
shall consist in levying war against them, or
in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid
and comfort,
"By the principles of the American Revo-
lution, arbitrary power may, and ought to be
resisted even by arms, if necessary. The
time may come when it shall be the duty of a
State, in order to preserve itself from the op-
pression of the General Government, to have
recourse to the sword; in which case, the
proposed form of government declares that
the State, and every one of its citizens who
acts under its authority, are guilty of a direct
act of treason; reducing, by this provision,
the different States to this alternative, that
they must tamely and passively yield to des-
potism, or their citizens must oppose it at the
hazard of the halter, if unsuccessful; and
reducing the citizen of the State which shall
take arms to a situation in which they must
be exposed to punishment, let them act as they
will, since, if they obey the authority of their
State government they will be guilty of trea-
son against the United States; if they join
the General Government, they will be guilty
of treason against their own State."
Then he goes on to say :
"To save the citizens of the respective States
from this disagreeable dilemma, and to secure
them from being punishable as traitors to the
United States, when acting expressly in obe-
dience to the authority of their own State, I
wished to have obtained, as an amendment to
the third section of this article, the following
clause:
" Provided, That no act or acts done by
one or more of the States against the United
States, or by any citizen of any one of the
United States, under the authority of one or |
more of the said States, shall be deemed
treason, or, punished as such; but in case of
war being levied by one or more of the States
against the United States, the conduct of
of each party towards the other, and their
adherents respectively, shall be regulated by
the laws of war and of nations,"
" But this provision was not adopted, being
too much opposed to the great object of many
of the leading members of the Convention,
which was, by all means, to leave the States
at the mercy of the General Government,
since they could not succeed in their imme-
diate and entire abolition."
Now, I contend that Luther Martin is a
good authority in support of this proposition
that gentlemen want to break down, that the
allegiance of every citizen of Maryland is
paramount to the Government of the United
States, before any allegiance to his own State.
I might show, if it was necessary, that the
very gentleman, (Mr. Chambers.) who drew
up the report of the minority of the Commit-
tee on the Declaration of Rights, was just
about as good anti-States' rights man as I
am, while in the last Constitutional Conven-
tion, the one that met in 1850. By referring
to pages 469 and 470 of the second volume
of the debates of that Convention, it will be
found, while discussing the question of the
selection of judges by the people, and taking
away their appointment from the Governor,
this question of sovereignty came up. And
Judge Chambers then said :
"The sovereign power of the people would
be embodied whenever action was to be had,
and neither Constitution nor law would ex-
ist or oppose their sovereign will. That will
would be Constitution and law above all re-
straint; and include in itself, legislative, ex-
ecutive, and judicial authority. Sir, is this
theory attractive which yields results so full
of mischief? But fortunately, it is as im-
practicable as it is mischievous. "The Gov-
ernment of the United States"—that is the
phrase they quibble on now—"the Govern-
ment of the United States originates from the
supreme sovereign power of the people of the
United States. They are as supreme and sov-
ereign in relation to that Government as the
people of Maryland are in relation to our
State government. There is as much moral
and political propriety in respecting their
rights, as there is in respecting the rights of
the people of Maryland."
Then, at page 261 of the same volume, in
relation to the election of members of Con-
gress, and the inserting a provision in the
Constitution requiring that one of the United
States Senator., should be taken from the
eastern shore, and the other from the western
shore, Judge Chambers opposed it, on the
ground that it was in conflict with the Con-
stitution of the United States. He says :
"As to this matter, the Legislature is not
the creature of this Convention. It derives |
