the State of Maryland, if yon were to say ex-
pressly that the Government of the United
States—I mean thereby the old-fashioned ma-
chine Government, constituted of all the ele-
ments that make the system created by the
Constitution—if you were to say in so many
words that the Government of the United
States should have jurisdiction over any sub-
ject denied to them by the Constitution of
the United States, you would not enlarge its
powers. Nor can you abridge them. As I
propose presently to show the powers pos-
sessed by the General Government are su-
preme to the utmost extent of that word.
Yon cannot abridge them; you cannot en-
large them. Then where is the necessity of
undertaking to describe them? That de-
scription adds nothing to them. Your de-
scription will mot be regarded as the rule of
construction. I say, therefore, it is an idle
business; it is a business with which we have
nothing lo do; it is a business with which we
should not meddle. The Constitution of the
United States and the laws passed pursuant
thereto, will regulate the action of all the de-
partments of the Government of the United
States, in its executive, its legislative, its ju-
dicial character. We cannot control them.
I say, therefore, it is an idle effort for us to
interfere with it.
There has been very large reference made
to the elementary principles of this organic
law. We have heard—and I must be per-
mitted to say, I think without any necessity,
for I really do not think it was calculated at
all to enlighten us upon the subject of intro-
ducing or rejecting this article—a great deal
of debate, very interesting, very intelligent,
sometimes very harsh to be sure in language,
upon the subject of the organization of this
government, of the rights of the States and
of the United States, I propose upon that
subject to give my views, and a few of the
reasons which lead me to the conclusions I
shall advance. In doing so I shall probably
differ from most of the gentlemen who have
addressed us upon that subject; because I
cannot concur to the whole extent, either
with one side or the other.
I never have believed in the doctrine of se-
cession. I do not now. I never have be-
lieved in the doctrine of a centralized gov-
ernment on the part of the United States. I
once heard a member of Congress say, in
reference too the tariff question then under de-
bate, "he believed with Duff Green," then
editor of a newspaper at Washington. New
I will say, not because I cannot describe
my opinions, but because I have not time to
do so, that I entertain on this subject the
opinions expressed by Daniel Webster. That
I suppose will mark me as a heretic with some
folk?.
(The hour having expired, the hammer fell.)
Mr. DANIEL moved that the gentleman be
allowed to proceed. |
Mr. ABBOTT. I do not desire to abridge
the time of the gentleman by any means, but
as the hour of one o'clock is near, and as no
other speeches are to be made after that hour
except by the chairman of the committee, I
solicit from the House the privilege of tell
or fifteen minutes to make some reply to
the gentleman from Prince George's, (Mr.
Berry.)
Mr. DANIEL modified his motion, so as to
give Mr. Chambers the privilege of speaking
until one o'clock.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. CHAMBERS proceeded. I mean, when I
speak of opinions for which I have great re-
spect, opinions expressed before these troubles
had brought other men and greater minds
than some of us into a predicament which
warped their judgment. I mean the opinions
which Mr. Webster entertained when I had
the pleasure of sitting beside him and hear-
ing his addresses to which reference has been
made.
In the first place, I broadly assert that
there was no such institution, there was no
such government, there was no such nation
as the United States prior to the year 1778.
That may astonish my friends; but I assert
it as a fact. Originally, as has been properly
said by the gentlemen from Baltimore, the
colonies had for their sovereign, King George
III. It was to him they owed allegiance.
This word " allegiance " is one of the royal
words, which has not been much used in this
country heretofore, it denotes the fealty
which the subject owes to the prince. But it
is now used to denote obedience to any power
which has a right to command. Let us re-
member that the colonies conducted the war
against Great Britain for two years before
they undertook to call themselves indepen-
dent States. They were colonies while they
were prosecuting the war. At first not one
man in a thousand dreamed of being any-
thing else than a subject of King George.
They claimed redress in that character. They
expected it, desired it, and were fighting to
obtain it, in that character. They were cer-
tainly not a sovereign nation at that time.
In 1776, the doctrine of independence ob-
tained. The independence of what? The
independence of these colonies. Not of the
Federal Government; but of these colonies.
They declared themselves independent. Did
they organize a government? Had they a
head, branches, or anything that constituted
a government? No; they had not. Each
State sent delegates to a Congress, just as
King George, King William, and the Em-
peror Napoleon, may send delegates tor con-
ference to London. They had certain powers
delegated to them by their respective con-
stituencies, each being perfectly independent
of the others, as England is independent
of France. These people managed the con-
cerns of these then United States, or |
