"Resolved, That this State is ardently at-
tached to the Union; that it does not desire
any additional powers to be conferred on the
General Government, hut wishes every dele-
gated power to be exerted that has a tendency
to strengthen the bonds that unite us, and to
fortify the hope that the Union will be per-
petual.
"Resolved, That this State does not recog-
nize the power in any State to nullify a law
of Congress, nor to secede from the Union,
and that it will sustain the General Govern-
ment in the exercise of every constitutional
means to preserve unimpaired the integrity
of the United States."
(The allotted time having expired, the ham-
mer fell.)
Mr. JONES, of Somerset. The gentleman
from Baltimore city has argued this case
with a fairness and ability, which in my
judgment entitles him to be heard until he
finishes his argument. I move that he have
liberty to proceed.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. STIRLING proceeded: There are sev-
eral other resolutions expressing their firm
and strong attachment to the Union which I
think it unnecessary to lead. But as a co-
temporaneous exposition of the fame subject,
I desire to read upon this question of allegi-
ance from the case of Hunt vs. The State of
South Carolina, quoted in Kent's Commenta-
ries, vol. 2:
'' In the cage of the State vs. Hunt in South
Carolina, in 1835, (2 Hill's S. C. Rep. 1,) the
subject of allegiance, and to whom due under
the Constitution of the United States was
profoundly discussed, and it was" declared by
a majority of the Court of Appeals, that the
citizens owed allegiance to the United States,
and subordinately to the State under which
they lived; that allegiance was not now used
in the feudal sense, arising out of the doctrine
of tenure, and that we owed allegiance or
obedience to both governments to the extent
of the constitutional powers existing in each
The Court held that an oath prescribed by an
act of the Legislature of December, 1833, to
be taken by every militia officer, that he shall
be faithful and true allegiance bear to the State
of South Carolina was unconstitutional and
void, as being inconsistent with the allegiance
of the citizens to the Federal Government.
The Court consequently condemned the ordi-
nance of the Convention of South Carolina
of November, 1832, as containing unsound
and heretical doctrine, when it declared that
the allegiance of the citizen was due to the
State, and obedience only, and not allegiance,
could be due to any other delegated
power."
Mr. BELT, If the gentleman will permit
me, I will suggest with reference to the reso-
lutions which the gentleman has read, so far
as they touch our views, we avail ourselves
of a remark the gentleman himself made in a |
former part of his very able argument with
regard to certain authorities which happened
to agree with us; that he was discharged
from the obligation to stand by them because
the people who stated them did not know as
much as we know now.
Mr. STIRLING. The gentleman can stand
or sit, whichever he pleases, corrected. I
said that in regard to constitutional questions
I consult authorities just. as I consult them in
a court of law. In regard to matters in re-
lation to which circumstances have entirely
changed, and opinions based upon other cir-
cumstances, any man would be very unwise,
if he absolutely depended on the opinion of
any roan who lived so long ago that he could
not know the facts and circumstances upon
which the opinion would properly be based.
So far as that principle will aid the gentle-
man, he is at liberty to take it. The facts
were to a great extent the same at this time.
They were not debating a question of fact,
hut a question of constitutional interpreta-
tion, the same in all time. and which cannot
be varied under any circumstances, it seems
that with one very distinguished exception,
these resolutions met with the unanimous as-
sent of the people of Maryland represented in
the General Assembly. There was a substi-
tute offered for the resolutions by the honor-
able gentleman from Somerset who addressed
the Convention the other day (Mr. Jones.)
By that substitute he distinctly declared that
" the General Government has no shadow of
right, under the Constitution, to employ the
military or naval power of the Government
against the sovereignty of a State ;—that the
idea of preserving a union of sovereign re-
publics by military force is the most prepos-
terous of all absurdities;—that the General
Government of these United States is pre-
served, not by the fear of military force but
by the concurring free will and choice of the
people of the several States, and that the con-
trary doctrine would convert the Government
into a military despotism."
The House refused to adopt the substitute ;
and then the vote was taken upon adopting
the report of the committee, which was adopt-
ed upon the yeas and nays by a vote of 59
yeas, and "Negative, Mr. Jones," who un-
like his colleague certainly has the merit of
consistency.
Mr. JONES, of Somerset. I held those opin-
ions then and I have held them ever since.
Thirty-two years of experience have tended
to confirm the truth of the principles I then
announced. Although I stood in a small
minority in the House of Delegates, I will do
that body the justice to say that I was allowed
unlimited time to express my views. I be-
lieve I was beard over four hours.
Mr. STIRLING. If the minority here were
reduced to himself, we would allow the gen-
tleman six hours.
Mr. JONES, of Somerset. The progress of |
