Mr. PETER moved that the Convention ad-
journ until to-morrow.
The PRESIDENT ruled that motion out of
order,
The question being taken upon the motion
to adjourn, it was agreed to; and
The PRESIDENT declared the Convention ad-
journed until half-past four o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The Convention assembled at half past four
o'clock, P. M,
The roll was called and the following mem-
bers answered to their names:
Messrs. Goldsborough, President; Abbott,
Annan, Baker, Belt, Berry, of Prince
George's, 'Blackiston, Brown, Carter, Cun-
ningham, Cushing, Daniel, Davis, of Wash-
ington, Dellinger, Duvall, Earle, Ecker, Far-
row, Gale, Galloway, Greene, Harwood,
Hebb, Hoffman, Hopkins, Hopper, Horsey,
Jones, of Somerset, Keefer, Kennard, Lee,
Marbury, McComas, Mitchell, Miller, Mulli-
kin, Murray, Negley, Nyman, Parker, Robi-
nette, Sands, Schley, Schlosser, Scott, Smith,
of Carroll, Smith, of Worcester, Sneary, Stir-
ling, Sykes, Thruston, Todd, Turner, Wood-
en—54.
SERGEANT-AT-ARMS.
Mr. SCOTT submitted the following order:
Ordered, That the President be authorized
to appoint a person to act as Sergeant-at-
Arms, temporarily, who shall receive the pay
of the present incumbent while acting in his
place.
Mr. MILLER. Does that mean that the pay
of the present Sergeant-at-Arms is to be
stopped during the time of the new appoint-
ment?
Mr. SCOTT. Of course. It expressly says
"the pay of the present incumbent."
Mr. HARWOOD moved .to amend by striking
out the latter clause, " the pay of the present
incumbent while acting in his place," and in-
serting " $5 per day."
The amendment was rejected.
The order was adopted.
The PRESIDENT appointed, in compliance
therewith, John T. Wright, temporary Ser-
geant-at-Arms for to-day and such other days
as the Sergeant-at-Arms may be absent.
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS—ALLEGIANCE.
The Convention resumed the consideration
of the order of the day which had been in-
formally postponed, being the second reading
of the Declaration of Rights; the pending
question being upon the amendment of Mr.
BRISCOE, to strike out "paramount" before
"allegiance" in the fourth article.
Mr. MARBURY. The great Daniel Webster,
who has been so often quoted in this Conven-
tion, said very beautifully in one of his elo-
quent speeches, that— |
" This is a Union, and not a consolidation
of States;"
" Not chaos-like together crushed and bruised,
But line the world harmoniously confused,
Where order in variety we see,
And where, though all things differ, all agree."
I agree with that great statesman that this
is a Union, and not a consolidation of States.
Not to review the whole history of this doc-
trine of sovereignty, which I am very glad to
be relieved of by the able exposition of that
subject, which has already been given by a
number of gentlemen upon this floor, but
simply referring to the facts that in the colo-
nial history of this country, from the estab-
lishment of their independence, from the very
day when the Declaration of Independence
itself was in the course of preparation, a plan
was on foot for the purpose of connecting the
States or colonies then in existence, a plan re-
cognizing in as clear a manner as any propo-
sition could recognize, that they were to be
separate, sovereign and independent States.
Following up that bistory to the adoption of
the Constitution of the United States, we find
the same fact admitted by all parties, that
there could be no Constitution of the United
States, even without a full, fair recognition
of the sovereignty, the independence and the
equality of the States. These are facts of
history. They are facts which never upon
this floor or in any other assembly in the
United States, have been refuted. This gov-
ernment is formed of coequal States; and
equality is the very corner stone and founda-
tion of this government. Destroy that equal-
ity and you destroy the very foundation and
corner stone of the government itself.
Yet, sir, to-day there is a proposition to in-
corporate in the bill of rights of the State of
Maryland, for the first time in the history of
this country, a provision, which in my hum-
ble opinion, would at once destroy this re-
cognized doctrine of the equality of the States.
The internal evidence of the Constitution it-
self shows that the States, the smallest of
them, and the humblest of them, were upon
a perfect equality with the largest. If you
once admit this doctrine of the equality of the
States, and allow States possessing far less
population, far less wealth, to stand equally
with the most populous and most wealthy,
under the shelter of the Constitution of the
United States, you cam come to no other
conclusion than that there must be some inher-
ent power, some great sovereign element in
those States giving them a right to that re-
cognition of equality. What' other plea could
they halve had fur putting Rhode Island upon
an equal footing with the great States of New
York and Virginia, than the idea that they
represented a great solid principle that lay as
the keystone of the government. Those States
were sovereign in the beginning. They have |
