any such, is quite unfounded. We were
about as well informed, certainly not more
so, than every other member of this Conven-
tion, when this item in the bill of rights was
adopted; for it was virtually adopted by the
majority of the committee before it saw the
light of the committee-room. I, however,
yield to the request of several gentlemen,
and propose to give my views upon this sub-
ject.
But I have been influenced to addregs this
house by other considerations. I have wit-
nessed with much regret the temper that
seems to prevail here in regard to debate in
general. In a life now somewhat beyond the
ordinary period, I have been a member of
various legislative and other bodies where
discussions have been had. But I have never,
that I recollect, beard in any one of them
such a general tone of apparent submission
to the discretion, to the decreed will, of those
who were auditors. I never saw such
a general exhibition of an assumed willing-
ness on the part of those who listen to forego
some claim they had to restrain those who
addressed them. I have all my life been
taught to hear gentlemen, when assembled to
debate and decide upon particular questions
as having equal privilege to give all the views
which they may entertain upon that subject;
not to do so at the pleasure, at the discretion
and as the favor, of any particular portion of
the body. We have heard over and over
again, that we are permitted here to express
our views. That itself is proof that all the
one side of the argument is right, and all the
other side is wrong.
Now, sir, this is a sort of favor which I do
not hold it is in the power of the majority to
withhold from the minority. If there be any
priority of claim or right to be heard, it is
on the part of those who are the minority
If they cannot resist the action of the ma-
jority, they should at least express their rea
sons for dissent. And there has not only
been this apparent assumption of great merit
for indulgence on the part of the majority
but the most offensive terms have been ap-
plied to those who differ with the majority
Gentlemen have not been told in totidem ver
his—" You are traitors; you are rebels; you
ought to have General Wallace and his troops
brought here." But they have had applied
to them terms not less offensive.
Why, sir, what is the license which every
American citizen, which every Maryland citi-
zen claims? The license of debate, in such
terms as he may think proper, whatever may
be the question brought before the body
What has Mr. Webster said upon this sub
ject?
" Free speech is a homestead right, a fire-
side privilege. It has ever been enjoyed in
every house, cottage and cabin in the nation
It is not to be drawn in controversy. It is as
undoubted as the right of breathing the air, |
and walking on the earth. It is a right to
be maintained in peace and in war. It is a
right which cannot be invaded without de-
stroying constitutional liberty. Hence this
right should be guarded and protected by the
freemen of the country with a jealous care,
unless they are prepared —''
For what? Why, what has been suggested
as a possible prelude here :
"— unless they are prepared for chains
and anarchy."
Now, this is a subject far beyond the limits
contemplated by Mr. Webster, although we
may not occupy the ground he does, of entire
freedom of speech. It is a subject which in-
volves from necessity the dissolution of the
Union. But is this the first time this ques-
tion was ever discussed? Have not gentle-
men told us over and over again—is it not a
notorious fact—that this is a question that
has divided the sentiments and opinions of
the brightest intellects, and the purest pa-
triots of this country? It was discussed, we
all know, years and years ago, when no hu-
man being dreamed of its resulting; as it now
has, in such a conflict between different por-
tions of this once happy nation as we now
witness. And was it ever heard before—can
gentlemen find in all the discussions with
which we have been favored, history after
history, book after hook, speech afterspeech—
can any one point to a solitary allusion to
the doctrine now broached here, that it is
a subject not within the purview of this right
of free speech? No, sir, nobody ever dreamed
of it; nobody ever took offence at it; nobody
ever thought it a doctrine too dangerous to
be discussed by freemen. Here, and for the
first time, we are told that to advocate what
we do is treason.
Now, sir, I do not go to the extent of those
gentlemen with whom I have generally acted.
But I am like Mr. Webster in that particular
at least; and a very humble imitation. I go
for the freedom of speech; and whether it be
on the one side or the other; whether it be
to advocate my doctrine or to dispate it; I
will stand by that right of speech at the peril
of the pistol, or the sword, or the dagger.
And I will hold up my voice against that
brow-beating system which would put down
gentlemen who may advocate this doctrine
as strongly as ever it was advocated, or even
more so.
But before I proceed with the argument in
this case, there are some little matters en-.
tirely unconnected with it, which deserve at
my hands some notice. And I prefer preced-
ing those by an effort to extricate the memory
of a man who was my personal friend; who
was a patriot; who was beloved by a large
portion of the American people; who has de-
scended to his grave with a halo about his
memory which any citizen of the country
may well envy. I would desire to say a
word or two in explanation of what if not |
