no power or authority whatever on this sub
ject from this Convention, or from the people
who gave us our authority. It is, on the
contrary, in this respect, exclusively the
creature of the Constitution of the United
States; or rather of the people of the United
States, by whom that Constitution was
framed. Again, the members of the Legis-
lature will be bound, by the solemnities of
an oath, to respect the Constitution of the
United States as the supreme law of this
State, as it is of all the States; and if any
provision in that law should conflict with,
and oppose our code, it will repeal the enact-
ment of any State authority and render
it void and of no effect—of no effect to im-
pose any political or any moral obligation on
members of the Legislature to respect it. I
have therefore, sir, come to the conclusion
that we have no authority to adopt the propo-
sition now before the Convention."
Mr. DANIEL. He was a whig then.
Mr. THOMAS. So be was, and refers to
Daniel Webster in his speech, and compli-
ments Mr. Webster on his great speech
against States' rights in 1833. On page 271,
Judge Chambers says;
"To proceed, then, I have again to ex-
press my regret at the introduction of
this question. It is calculated to plaice
some of us in a false position, by the appear-
ance of not enforcing a practice which we ap-
prove. Believing as I do, that to adopt this
provisions would violate the Constitution of
the United States, I feel bound in candor to
say so. That Constitution, in the name of
the people of the United States, by whose au-
thority it was made, has delegated to the
States' as States, certain powers, amongst
which this of electing Senators is one." The
Constitution then delegated to the States,
not the States to the Constitution,
On page 287, he says further :
"If the Constitution of the United States
forbids the exercise of the power we are now
asked to exercise, we are bound to refrain.
it is the supreme law of the land, overriding
our own Constitution and laws, and we have
all of us on some occasions solemnly appealed
to the Searcher of all hearts to witness our
deliberate purpose to obey and respect it.
Now, sir, I am at a loss to comprehend how,
in a question whether we shall incorporate in
the Constitution a provision contrary to the
Constitution of the United States, any prin-
ciple of self-defence is involved. Is an ag-
gression upon the supreme law to be regarded
in any way as self-defence? I believe the
provision utterly at variance with the law to
which I have sworn allegiance; can I violate
that oath, and burden my conscience with the
.deep stain of false swearing, because that
gentleman, or any other, chooses to think it
desirable for some supposed political advan-
tage?"
Now, he had sworn to support the Consti- |
tution of the United States, and his interpre-
tation was that he had sworn allegiance to it,
and that that allegiance was paramount to
the allegiance that he owed to the Constitu-
tion and laws of the State of Maryland.
I would also refer gentlemen to the eighth
and tenth sections of the first article of the
Constitution of the United States, where they
will find that powers of sovereignty were
taken from the States and given to the Gen-
eral Government. It is not necessary for me
to enumerate those powers. Every single
power of sovereignty that could be exercised
by a sovereign people were taken directly by
the people themselves, and transferred to
another government which they had formed,
giving that new government the exclusive
right to exercise those powers, and taking
those powers directly from themselves.
But, let us suppose the Constitution to be
a mere compact between the States, as gen-
tlemen say it is. What then? Has any
State the right to break or dissolve that com-
pact? Is not a compact made for posterity
and to endure forever? And how can it be
contended that any one State has the right or
the power to abrogate or annul that compact
at pleasure? Does the compact contain within
itself any power for its own destruction?
Are not parties to the compact bound by the
terms of the compact? The word "compact"
is mentioned but once in the Constitution,
and that is where it says, "no State shall
make a compact with another State." And
yet gentlemen say the States are sovereign.
Gentlemen will find what I have stated by
reference to section ten, article one, of the
Constitution of the United States. The com-
pact defines treason. Have any of the parties
to the compact the right to commit treason?
And suppose they do, (as they have done,)
have not the remaining parties to the compact
the right to compel obedience to the terms of
the compact? The compact makes the Con-
stitution and laws of the United States su-
preme. Suppose a State makes a law that
conflicts with and nullifies a law of Congress;
have not the remaining parties to the compact
the right to enforce a compliance with its
terms? Why, sir, the compact itself, to say
nothing of the inherent right of every nation
to sustain and preserve its own existence,
gives to Congress all necessary powers to
carry into effect all powers vested by that
compact in the United States. Yes, sir, com-
pact as they say it is, it strips the States of
all sovereignty.
I understood the gentleman from Prince
George's, (Mr. Belt,) to say that the Govern-
ment had no power to coerce a State. Does
the gentleman forget that in the articles of
confederation there was a power to coerce,
and Thomas Jefferson so said " If there is no
power to coerce, what did Luther Martin
mean when he said that in case a State deemed
it proper to have recourse to the sword to |
