"No soldier shall, in time of peace, be
quartered in any house without the consent
of the owner; nor in time of war, but in a
manner to be prescribed by law."
"The right of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated; and no warrants shall
issue but upon probable cause; supported by
oath or affirmation, and particularly describ-
ing the place to be searched, and the persons
or things to be seized."
"No person shall be held to answer for a
capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on
a presentment or indictment of a grand jury,
except in cases arising in the land or naval
forces, or in the militia when in actual service
in time of war or public danger; nor shall any
person be subject for the same offence to be put
twice in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall
he be compelled, in any criminal case, to be
witness against himself, nor be deprived of
life, liberty, or property, without due process
of law; nor shall private property be taken
for public use without, just compensation."
"In all criminal prosecutions the accused
shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public
trial, by an impartial jury of the State and
district wherein the crime shall have been
committed, which district shall have been
previously ascertained by law, and to be in-
formed of the nature and cause of the accusa-
tion; to. be confronted with the witnesses
against him; to have compulsory process for
obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have
the assistance of counsel for his defence."
"The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by
it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people."
I say, so long as I read these things in the
fundamental law of the land, as the condi-
tions upon which the States acceded to the
federal compact; and so long as I believe I
live under a government of law, then so long
shall I, for one, protest against the doctrine
which will lead to a consolidation of all pow-
er, and make might the measure of right.
I perceive, Mr. President, that I must
abridge very much what I had intended to
say. There is in this fourth article either a
fatal doctrine or a nonsensical doctrine:
"Paramount allegiance to the Constitution
and government of the United States." I
say it embodies and means either a fatal er-
ror or an absurdity. Do gentlemen mean to
tell me that the Constitution and laws of this
land, and the government of this land, are
separate and distinct things? Do gentlemen
mean to tell me that the government of this
country is the administration? Do they
mean to tell me that there is one thing, the
Constitution and laws, and there is another
thing, the government? I acknowledge no
such doctrine. My doctrine is that the gov-
ernment in this country consists of three |
branches: the executive, the legislative, the
judicial; separate, distinct and co-ordinate
branches, and whether it be peace or war,
whether the sound of the shuttle be heard in
our workshops, or the clangor of arms and
the implements of war engaged in shedding
our brothers' blood, my doctrine is that the
Constitution and laws in this country remain
the same, and were it the Father of his Coun-
try, the immortal Washington himself, I
would not intrust him with the discretion
and the power of setting aside the law, and
substituting arbitrary will as has been done.
A government has been well defined to be
the body of fundamental laws of a State; the
power or authority which rules a community.
And when the doctrine becomes established
that the power which rules a community is
not a government of law, but the mere ad-
ministrator of the law, then woe to the liberties
of the people.
The question has been raised, and it is an
important question—where resides the right
to judge of the infractions of the compact?
My friend from Prince George's, (Mr. Belt,)
discussed that question in so able and lumi-
nous a manner that it is really unnecessary
to argue it any further. The co-ordinate
powers of this government being the legisla-
tive, the judicial, and the executive, I ask,
how can any one department constitute a
sovereignty? If there be any sovereignty,
it is the sovereignty of all. And I ask how
in reason can one part of it be made para-
mount, superior, and the judge over the others?
In an ably written pamphlet by John Lowell,
of Massachusetts, he asks this question :
" Is there no constitutional right in the ex-
ecutive, judiciary, and people of the several
States, to judge whether the militia are, or
are not, constitutionally called into service?
In whom, from the very nature of the limita-
tion in the Constitution, repose's the ultimate
right to judge whether either of the three
cases, (to execute the laws of the Union,
suppress insurrections, and repel invasions,)
provided by the Constitution, does exist?
We answer, generally in the constituent, not
in the delegate; in the master, not in the
servant; ultimately in the people, (of the
several States,) principally from the necessity
of the case in the commanders-in-chief of the
several States. The very idea of limitation
excludes the possibility that the delegate
should be the judge."
Why, sir, who is the delegate? Have we
sunk so low? Have we become so abject?
Has indeed the spirit of slavery pervaded and
permeated this broad land to such an extent
that the powers that rule, in opposition to
the well established doctrines of all republi-
can governments, are the masters? Sir, my
doctrine is that the. people are the masters;
and the powers that rule are the mere repre-
sentatives, in the language of this writer, the
servants of the people. |
