fed to those States, and consequently had not
been adopted by them. Therefore it was that
the committee on revision changed the
phraseology of the preamble, making it to
read as we now find it; little dreaming, little
imagining, it never entering into their con-
ceptions, that in after times, when the ex-
pounders and luminaries of other days came
to review their work, they would find in this
obviously necessary change of phraseology
anything that would sustain an interpreta-
tion which virtually makes the people of this
broad land slaves and serfs at the feet of fed-
eral power.
I will not detain the Convention by read-
ing all the different clauses and authorities.
There is scarcely a feature in this Constitu-
tion which is national in its character. There
is scarcely a feature in it that does not show
that the States made it, that the States are
the parties to it; that the States are the pil-
lars that uphold it, and when you strike
down the States you strike down the pillars
that sustain the edifice, and those who have
read history have read it to little purpose, if
they do not find in the long track of blood
and desolation coming down through the
dark ages to this present hour, that con-
solidation always results in anarchy, despot-
ism and ruin.
I desire here not to be misunderstood, so
long as I read as I do, in the sixth article of
the Constitution of the United States this
language:—
" This Constitution and the laws of the
United States which shall be made in pursu-
ance thereof, and all treaties made or which
shall be made under the authority of the
United States, shall be the supreme law of
the land; and the judges in every State shall
be bound thereby, anything in the Consti-
tution or laws of any State to the contrary
notwithstanding,"
So long as I read that clause in the Consti-
tution of the United States, I own and ac-
knowledge that the Constitution and laws of
the United States, and the treaties made in
pursuance thereof, are the supreme law of
the land. But it does seem to me that the
very fact that they are the supreme law of the
land is the great and incontrovertible reason
why this doctrine of paramount allegiance,
as now claimed, does "not obtain. Nor is
there any inconsistency in this position. It
is the supreme law of the land. Why? What
makes it the supreme law of the land? Is it
because it is written herein the Constitution?
These words were written down and incorpo-
rated here before any one citizen of Maryland
was bound one iota, one jot, one tittle by
them. They were put in here before Mary-
land owed one iota, one jot, or one tittle of
reverence or obedience to this Constitution,
or to any Federal Government whatever, be-
cause she was not then a party to the com-
pact. Why am I bound by it? Why am I |
compelled to say it is the supreme law of the
land? Simply and solely, and exclusively,
because my State in adopting it, adopted it
in all its parts, and it said in its adoption of
it that it should be the supreme law of the
land. It of itself is not the supreme law of
the land. But it is the supreme law of the
land because my State has said that I should
recognize it as such, and it seems to me that
in thus transferring the services of a subject to
another, acknowledging the supremacy of
another creation, we have the highest evi-
dence of sovereignty that any people or any
sovereignty can possibly give.
Now let us look at the ratification of this
Constitution. How was it ratified ?
"The ratifications of the Conventions of
nine States shall be sufficient for the estab-
lishment of this Constitution between the
States so ratifying the same."
And how was it done? "Done in Con-
vention, by the unanimous consent of the
States present." It was not done by the
people; it was not done by the mass; it was
not done by a majority of the States; or a
majority of the delegates, or by a majority of
the people. It was ''done in Convention by
the unanimous consent of the States present,
the seventeenth day of September, in the year
of our Lord one thousand seven hundred
and eighty-seven, and of the independence of
the United States of America, the twelfth."
Now, sir, I have briefly gone through the
history of the States as colonies, the articles
of the confederation, the Declaration of Inde-
pendence,' and the Constitution of the United
States. Every body knows the extreme re-
pugnance some of the people of the different
States evinced towards the adoption of this
Constitution. In the Convention of Virginia,
Patrick Henry, foreseeing the difficulties
which would result from it, almost with an
eye of prescience glancing into futurity,
feared the doctrine advanced here to-day.
Said he: "What right had those men to
say—we, the people of the United States?
What right had they to arrogate to them-
selves the power to say—we, the people of
the United States, when they were not there
as the people of the United States?" And he
argued that the doctrine of consolidation
would be founded upon that very clause, and
events have proved that he was correct.
Some of the gentlemen have said these are
obsolete ideas. I say they are not obsolete
ideas. I do not care if they have been dis-
cussed by Webster, and Hayne, and Calhoun,
and Woodbury. I do not care if the luminous
minds of the past have thrown their light
upon these things. They are living, breath-
ing issues of to-day. They have affected past
generations; they lay at the foundation of
the Government that has been founded; they
affect us as individuals, and in our State and
national relations. And so long as I read as
I do in the amendments to that Constitution— |
