before the Convention, is on the motion to
strike out "paramount" before "allegiance,
in the fourth line. The article commence
with a quotation, as I suppose it was mean
to be, of a clause in the Constitution of the
United States, which clause is in these
words:
"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 Constitu
tion or laws of any State to the contrary
notwithstanding."
I not only subscribe to everything stated
in that article, that "the judges in every
State shall be bound thereby," but I subscribe
to an extension of that language, and say that
every citizen of every State of this Union shall
be bound thereby. I have no objection to
incorporating such a declaration, if it shall
be the pleasure of the Convention, in our Bill
of Rights, although I do not think this is the
place for it, and although I find no precedent
of its incorporation in any Bill of Rights or
Constitution of any State. I recognize the
truth of that declaration in its full effect, in
its full obligation upon the conscience and
upon the good faith of every citizen of the
land.
But the learned Committee that reported
it will permit me to take exception to the
logic which attempts to draw from that
clause the doctrine which is here incorporated
that every citizen of this State owes para-
mount allegiance to the Constitution and
Government of the United States.
My objection to that article in the first
place is, that nowhere have I found the doc-
trine taught that allegiance is due to the
Constitution or the law, or the Government,
if it is taken in its technical sense. If it is to
be enlarged to its meaning in European gov-
ernments, it is not to the law, or to the Con-
stitutional Government, but to the Sovereign,
that the tie of allegiance binds the obedience of
the subject. If it is to be taken in the sense of
obedience, for that I apprehend is principally
the sense in which it is used in our State
Constitutions, and in ordinary language here,
then I say that paramount allegiance is not
due to the Constitution or lo the laws, but to
the people. Paramount obedience is due to
the makers of the Constitutions and the laws.
Therefore it is that Constitutions and laws
pass away and are changed, it is to the au-
thority over Constitutions and laws, to the
people, that paramount obedience is due, if it
De dire anywhere. Therefore it is that I ob-
ject to the phrase which is attempted to be in-
corporated here, that supreme allegiance is due
either to the Constitution or to the Govern-
ment; for it is the paramount authority of
the people over Constitutions and over Gov- |
ernments, which claims the obedience of every-
citizen.
I have taken occasion to look into this
question, and see if any precedent has been
set in any instance in the Bill of Rights of
any State from 1770 down to the present
time. My worthy friend from Anne Arun-
del, (Mr. Miller, ) alluded to the same thing,
and said that in must of the States the oath
was to support the Constitution of the United
States. I have made a tabular view, showing
the oaths prescribed in the several State Con-
stitutions.
OATHS.
No oath of office is prescribed by the Con-
stitutions of Pennsylvania, Virginia, North
Carolina, Ohio, Missouri, Arkansas, Wiscon-
sin—7 States.
The oath prescribed in the Constitutions of
the following States is " to support the Con-
stitution of the United States and of the
State," viz: Maine, Connecticut, New York,
New Jersey, Tennessee, Indiana, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Alabama, Michigan, Iowa, Cali-
fornia, Minnesota, Oregon and Kansas—15
States.
The oath prescribed in the Constitutions of
the following States is " to preserve, protect
and defend the Constitution of this State and
of the United States," viz: South Carolina,
Illinois and Florida—3 States.
The Constitutions of Vermont, Rhode Is-
land and Kentucky prescribe an oath "to be
true and faithful" to the State—and Rhode
Island and Kentucky adds: and to support
the Constitution of the United States—3
States.
In Texas the oath is " to discharge the
duties of the office agreeably to the Constitu-
tion and laws of the United States and of this
State—1 State.
The Constitutions of the States of Massa-
chusetts, New Hampshire, Maryland and
Georgia prescribe an oath of "allegiance" to
the State—Maryland adds in the beginning
of the oath, " that I will support the Consti-
tution of the United States—4 States.
Oath in Constitution of Maryland, 1776.
Article 55.
" I, A. B., do swear that I do not hold my-
self bound in allegiance to the King of Great
Britain, and that I will be faithful and bear
true allegiance to the State of Maryland."
Oath in the Constitution of Maryland,
1850.
" That I will support the Constitution of
the United States, and that I will be faithful
and bear true allegiance to the State of Mary-
land and support the Constitution and laws
thereof."
There are then only four States which re-
quire an oath of allegiance, which I have
stated to be synonymous with obedience;
and in those States it is allegiance to the State,
meaning the people of the State that have the |
