same legislative body to a repetition of that
platform upon which the war was to be
waged and upon which peace wag to he con-
cluded. Sir, it occurred unfortunately that
almost every man of the majority in the
House proved to be inconsistent with himself
and voted against it. It hardly had a friend
amongst those who had before adopted it;
and who after adopting it were backed up
by the President, the Secretary of State, and
all the other members of his cabinet; and by
the whole country, except only what then
was and still is a minority; a large majority
of the people, all except the school of Garri-
son and Wendell Phillips.
Now, sir, inconsistency, like some other
things, has changed. It does not seem any
longer a disreputable political act. Not at
all; it is quite creditable now. But I am too
old to begin life over again—to have things
taught me that I could not learn before. I
shall never be able to understand this new
dictionary, so far as to conform to the late
improvements in its definitions of words,
whose meanings I have once learned. So
far for extraneous matters.
Now, Mr. President, I will say something
about the question before us. For, like a
great many of the speeches here, what I have
said does not prove that we ought to put this
article in the bill of rights, or that we ought
to reject it.
I think there are good reasons why we
ought not to adopt it. In the first place,
without regard to any merit or demerit of the
proposition ilself, I do not think this is a time
at which to adopt it. There is no man here
so young—and we have some very young
members—but he must have observed, must
have known from the impulses of his own
mind and his own feelings, that, when in a
state of high excitement, a man's judgment is
not so accurate, not so effectual, not to be re-
lied upon to such an extent, as when he is cool,
calm and collected. That is an axiom in mor-
als, in the history of human life, about which
I suppose there will be no question. Are we
now in that condition? Are the people of this
State, are those who sent us here, are those
who are here, divested of that feeling, that
passion, that excitement, which will deny to
them the full, fair exercise of their judgment?
I know perfectly well—from a long ac-
quaintance with the world, and I think some
knowledge of human nature, for we are all
very much alike; men are very much the
same, under the same circumstances. I have
known too long and too well the inefficacy
of addresses to the judgments of men while
excited by passion. I ask my friends
here, retired as they are within the walla of
this house, acting as we are or should be, as
the representatives, not of a people excited,
inflamed, but acting for all time, acting for
moments of peace and calm and composure;
acting for the interests of those who are to |
represent us in posterity ;—I ask gentlemen
here if they can, with their hands on their
hearts, say that they believe themselves in a
condition to examine this subject now as they
would examine it if not excited and inflamed
by the troubles around us? I ask them to
listen to truths which they must know; and
which under different circumstances would
have the effect of convincing them.
Sir, we have lived under a government es-
tablished by men than whom the history of
the world from its foundation to this hour
does not furnish others more distinguished for
good sense, and pure unadulterated patriot-
ism. Those men who fought and bled for
our independence, and who subsequently
formed the political institutions under which
we live. I say those men may defy comparison
for these characteristics with any set of
men who ever breathed on the face of God's
earth.
And yet what do we hear? They are de-
nounced as fools; they did not understand
their business. The gentleman from Cecil,
(Mr. Pugh,) told us in almost so many words,
that the men who made the Constitution of
1776, were Fools, and those who made the
Constitution of 1850 were knaves.
Mr. PUGH. Does the gentleman refer to
me?
Mr. CHAMBERS. "Thou art the man,"
Mr. PUGH. I wish to say that I never used
such words, and when the gentleman from
Kent, (Mr. Chambers,) reads what few re-
marks I did make, he will observe the differ-
ence.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Are they here?
Mr. Peon, They are on record, but they
are not yet published. What I said was that
there was some apology for those who at
that day favored the State rights doctrine.
Mr. CHAMBERS. It was not to that speech
that I referred. I allude to aspeech upon an
altogether different question; on the poll-tax
question. The gentleman said that the dec-
laration that '' the levying of taxes by the
poll was grievous and oppressive," was not
true; or rather, to use his own phrase, he
"denied the fact." "It was, to be sure, in
the old Constitution and the new one," 'But
if I am not greatly mistaken, he said the old
Constitution was made by persons who knew
nothing about it; and the last one was made
by persons whose conduct was governed alto-
gether by partizan motives.
Mr. PUGH. I shall always be willing to be
judged by my remarks; they are placed on
the record. But I disclaim here now, as I
disclaimed at that time, and as I shall always
disclaim, making any remarks that can possi-
bly be so interpreted. All that I meant to say
then was what I say now, that it is a mis-
take to state in the terms of the Constitution
or otherwise, that a poll-tax is grievous and
oppressive, when I know from my own expe-
rience, having myself paid a poll-tax, and |
