and if those reasons work conviction on my
mind, then I subscribe to such opinions, not
otherwise.
Mr. President: One would suppose, from
the course which the argument has taken
upon this subject of State rights, from the
manner and tone of language indulged in
by our Southern friends, that the majority
of this house have been taken up by the
roots, been perfectly vanquished, have
been left no base whatever upon which to
stand; that in the discussion of this question
we have been dwarfed almost out of sight, ut-
terly overwhelmed by the force and power of
the arguments adduced here. Is it so? I con-
fess that a plain practical review of the ques-
tion discussed and the authorities, assure me
that at least we have a show of a case.
As I said when I first got up, I halve no
prepared or connected argument to present
to the house; I have just skirmished about
here and there where the weak and ex-
posed position of the enemy invited. I will
now go back to the real question before the
house, which has been really lost sight of in
this debate, and will promise to be very brief
upon the subject.
First, this fourth article, as proposed by
the committee, is objected, to because of its
novelty. It commends itself to me for the
very opposite reason. It commends itself
to me by reason of its antiquity; because it
is contemporaneous with the formation of the
Constitution of the United States, So far
from being novel, it goes back to the forma-
tion of the Constitution of the United States;
and is almost literally a transcript of the 2d
section of the 6th article of the Constitution
of the United States, And where it has
been enlarged, the enlargement is simply a
deduction from the premises which the Con-
stitution itself supplies. The Constitution of
the United States says so and so; therefore,
says this article, thus and so naturally follow.
What does the Constitution of the United
States say? Here is the language ;
"This Constitution and the laws of the
United States which shall be made in pur-
suance 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."
That is literally the article reported by
the committee, except the matter relating to
treaties—
—' ' and the judges in every State shall be bound
thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of
any/ State to the contrary notwithstanding."
I hold that this article reported by the
committee is coextensive in its being with
the article of the Constitution of the United
States; because it does nothing more than
recite the fact that the Constitution, and laws
of the United States made in pursuance of
that Constitution, is the supreme law of the
land. That far it is old, at all events; and |
therefore not obnoxious to the objection of
novelty.
Now what part of this article is new?
Those words are alleged to be new, which de-
clare paramount allegiance lo be due to the
Constitution of the United States—but I
say they are as old as the other, because
they are inseparably connected with the
other, and form absolutely part and pared of
them. This deduction of the committee is
alleged to be new ;—for it is but the deduc-
tion, which the committee make, from the-
premises, which the Constitution supplies.
What is that deduction? that
" Every citizen of this State owes para-
mount allegiance to the Constitution and
Government of the United States."
Now what is the meaning of that article?
It speaks of two classes of laws. And in my
judgment it contains within itself the means
of its own interpretation. It is not necessary
to go outside of the article itself deduce the
true interpretation of it. It is speaking of
laws. First, it begins with the organic law,
the Constitution of the United States, and
the laws made in pursuance thereof—that is,
within the purview of the Constitution, made
in pursuance of the authority conferred by
it—those laws are proclaimed to be the su-
preme law of the land. Supreme to what?
Supreme to the laws which Congress may
pass? Supreme to the taws which confine
themselves and address themselves entirely to
the National Government? No, it goes on
to tell us what. they are supreme to. It goes
on to tell us that their supremacy invades
this so-called sovereignty of the State; that.
their supremacy is of such a character that
State lines do not keep their officers, who are
called upon to administer them, outside of
their lines, upon the plea of sovereignty.
This supremacy passes over State lines, down
through the Constitution, the organic law of
the State; down to the judiciary, one of the
co-ordinate branches of the State Govern-
ment; down to the lowest officer clothed with
judicial functions, and there commands him
to obey the higher, the supreme law. It says
to your Static judges—notwithstanding your
State Constitutions; notwithstanding your
State enactments; notwithstanding you are
sitting there under State authority, clothed
exclusively by the State with judicial au-
thority, deriving your appointment from the
organic law of the State; nevertheless do
you so expound your law that the Constitu-
tion of the United States, and the laws made
in pursuance thereof, shall be supreme; and
if any law of your State, organic or other-
wise, conflicts with the supreme law of the
land, then strike it down as null and void.
The PRESIDENT. The gentleman's time is out.
On motion of Mr. CHAMBERS, fifteen minutes
additional time was given.
Mr. RIDGELY. I shall conclude all I have
to say in less time than that. |
