cause it was across a dividing line—that that
was ipso facto to all intents and purposes, a
dissolution of the Union. Therefore it was
that I would have voted for anybody to de-
feat Mr. Lincoln. Nor am I alone in that
opinion.
" If we of the northern States will not vote
for a southern man, merely because he is a
southern man; and men of the south will not
vote for a northern man, merely because he
is a northern man; and if that principle is to
be carried out in all our national politics,
what must be the result? Disunion. That
itself is disunion. You may disguise and
cover it up as you please, but that it will be.
It may be regarded as the first step in dis-
union, but its consequences follow as inevi-
tably as fate. One section—the north or the
south—must always have the majority.
Disfranchise all upon the other side, and the
Union cannot hold together a day; it ought
not to hold together upon such conditions a
day."
Now, do gentlemen want to know who
said this? It is a gentleman of whom we
have all heard; it is the hero of Vienna; the
late Maj. Gen. Robert C. Schenck.
There are some things which have been as-
serted in the progress of this discussion, that
I could have wished had not been asserted.
I believe, as the late President of the United
States did, that there is no power in this
Government to wage war rightfully against
a recusant State. I believe that is casus omis-
sus; the power not having been given, it
cannot be rightfully exercised. And because
Mr. Buchanan took that view, and acted upon
his conscientious convictions of duty, as we
are bound to believe, we have heard heaped
upon his head anathemas and denunciations
such as I have rarely ever heard. I am not
his apologist or his defender; I did not vote
for him; I did not sustain his administration.
But when he, an aged man, having discharged
his term of office, under the convictions of his
duty, his oath, and the responsibilities at-
taching to his station—when, because of the
exercise of what he believed his duty in that
respect, he has been assailed in terms of vi-
tuperation, of denunciation and abuse, and
they are echoed back by the response of
"amen" by the gentleman from Howard,
(Mr. Sands,) I could not help thinking that
the hatred, the spleen, the venom evinced in
those remarks, fitted those gentlemen for any-
thing else than the position of censor. Cer-
tainly they evinced very little of the spirit
of Him who, when reviled, reviled not back
again.
There was another gentlemen from Balti-
more city, (Mr. Cushing,) who used the ex-
pression—that the Chief Justice of the United
States had stultified himself. Judge Taney
had stultified himself And has it it come
to this, that any one in the rage and spirit of
party can thus pronounce sentence upon the |
Chief Justice of the United States? A man
whose life has been one of usefulness, who is
now bending beneath the weight of his .three
score and ten years, and trembling upon the
very verge of that grave to which we are all
fast hastening. It did seem to me that in
consideration of the position and of tie age
—of the final account which that venerable
justice must soon render to the Judge of all
the living, he might at least have been spared
these censures, because the chief justice de-
cided a point which came before him legiti-
mately in the progress of a cause. It has
been said the point was not before the court,
and that he went outside of the record to de-
cide it. Sir, whether or not that question was
before the Court, was one of the very points
raised and discussed in that "Dred Scott
case," and that it was there properly is as
much a part of the decision as any other part
of it.
I wanted, some days ago, in the course of
this discussion, to respond to an allusion
which was made to the late Legislature of this
State. I was a member of that Legislature.
The strong hand of power, without law,
without right, without justice; in defiance of
all law, in defiance of States' rights, in de-
fiance of every principle of justice, was laid
upon that Legislature, and some of its mem-
bers were sent to Fort Warren. It was her-
alded throughout the length and breadth of
this land that they were secessionists, that
they intended to carry Maryland out of this
Union. Sir, as a member of that Legislature,
knowing I believe every member of it, and
intimate with the most of them, I say the
charge is false, come it whence it may. A
petition came up from Prince George's county,
asking that the Legislature pass anordinance
of secession. The very same day it came into
the House it was referred to a committee,
consisting of Mr. Wallis, Mr. Long, myself,
Mr. Briscoe and Mr. Compton. The commit-
tee immediately met, and on the same day
presented the following report :
''To the Honorable the Speaker
of the House of Delegates :
" The Committee on Federal Relations, to
whom has been referred the ' memorial of two
hundred and sixteen voters of Prince George's
county, praying the Legislature (if in its
judgment it possesses the power) to pass an
ordinance of secession without delay,' ask
leave respectfully to report that in their judg-
ment the Legislature does not possess the
power to pass such an ordinance as is prayed,
and that the prayer of the said memorialists
cannot, therefore, be granted.
S. T. WALLIS,
EDWARD LONG,
JAMES U. DENNIS,
JAMES T. BRISCOE,
BARNES COMPTON."
Which was adopted. |
