form of government, but that declaration of
their rights stands to this day as the guid-
ing principle of the people of Massachu-
setts. They are to-day asserting State
sovereignty. State supremacy to the fullest
extent; and their oath of office does not re-
quire their citizens or State officers to swear
even to support the Constitution of the
United States. When we go to Massachu-
setts to learn the lesson of abolition, why not
learn from them at the same time the true
doctrine of State Rights? "Of two such
lessons, why forget the nobler and the man-
lier one ?"
The Constitution of New Hampshire,
adopted after the adoption of the Constitu-
tion of the United States, follows the same
language. Their oath is :
"I, A. B., do solemnly swear, that I will
bear faith and true allegiance to the State of
New Hampshire, and will support the Con-
stitution thereof, see help me God."
Their bill of rights contains precisely
the same assertion of the sovereignty of the
State:
"The people of this State have the sole
and exclusive right of governing themselves
as a free, sovereign and independent State ;
and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise
and enjoy every power, jurisdiction and
right pertaining thereto, which is not, or
may not hereafter be, by them expressly
delegated to the United States of America
in Congress assembled."
The State of Connecticut, in the memo-
rable report of their Legislature in 1812,
declares:
"But it must not he forgotten that the
State of Connecticut is a free, sovereign and
independent State; that the United States
are a confederacy of States; that we are a
confederated and not a consolidated republic.
The Governor of this State is under a
high and solemn obligation to maintain the
lawful rights and privileges thereof as a
sovereign, free and independent State, as he
is to support the Constitution of the United
States, and the obligations to support the
latter imposes an obligation to support the
former."
The hour having expired the hammer
fell, but on motion the time was extended
fur fifteen minutes.
Mr. JONES, of Somerset, moved to extend
the time,
Mr. SANDS. I voted against the calling
of the previous question; and I would then,
if opportunity had been afforded me, have
expressed the wish that we should adhere |
strictly to the hour rule. I now express the
hope that those with whom I am acting
here, the majority of this body, will strict-
ly abide by the hour rule. It does injustice
to none. For that reason I shall vote
against allowing any member to go beyond
the hour. Having conformed to the rule
myself, I have a right to do so.
Mr. BARRON. I shall take no part what-
ever in this debate. I am anxious to hear
the gentlemen speak their minds plainly,
fairly, squarely, and for that reason I shall
vote to extend the time. There are some
on our aide of the House whom I want to
hear, and I wish for one to hear what may
be said. For that reason I shall vote to
extend the time.
Mr. DANIEL. If the time is extended,
I think it would better be for ten or fifteen
minutes.
Mr. JONES modified his motion, limiting
the time to fifteen minutes.
Mr. ABBOTT. I will move to allow fif-
teen minutes further, although I am opposed
to making the speeches over an hour.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. MILLER resumed. In pursuing this
subject I propose to inquire further what
testimony does the legislation of the State
of Maryland bring to bear on this subject ?
The oath of allegiance, as prescribed in
Article 55 of the Constitution of 1776, was
that the party abjures allegiance to any
foreign prince or power, and that he will
support and maintain the government of
the State of Maryland. When that oath
was subsequently changed it assumed the
form in which it now stands: " We swear
to support the Constitution of the United
States, and to be faithful and bear true al-
legiance to the State of Maryland."
The naturalization law passed by Mary-
land in 1777, chapter 12, is another illus-
tration of claiming allegiance to the State
from all persons who are to become citi-
zens of the State. The militia law of 1798,
chapter 53, did precisely the same thing.
I come now to the more important and
conclusive testimony. Let us go back to
the Convention which framed the Constitu-
tion, and to the lessons taught us by the
men who were the prominent actors in
those stirring and eventful times. Let us
learn from them what they did and what
sort of a government they established for
us. We must learn it here or wander in
utter darkness.
Permit me to cull from the Debates and
proceedings of the framers of the Constitu- |
