of the United States or to Congress who is
eligible to a seat there. Now, I regard it
as no violation of the Constitution of the Uni-
ted States to provide in our Constitution that
particular individuals in the State, who might
otherwise be eligible, shall be excepted from
that class. That is all my amendment does.
It does not make a man violate the Constitu-
tion of the United States by not going to
Congress. Otherwise, every man in the State
who possessed the qualifications for a mem-
ber of the Senate or of the House of Repre-
sentatives would be violating the Constitu-
tion of the United States if he did not go
there.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Ah ! humph ! [laughter.]
That is not an argument. The Constitution
of the United States allows a member of the
Legislature to be a member of Congress. Is
that conceded ?
Mr. CLARKE. Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. And the gentleman pro-
poses that the Constitution of Maryland shall
say that a member of the Legislature shall
not be a member of Congress. Now I ask
him if that is not a flat denial of a constitu-
tional privilege? Does it not deprive a man
of a privilege which the Constitution of the
United State's expressly gives him ?
Mr. CLARKE. It deprives him of a privi-
lege which the Constitution of the United
States gives him. But because you deprive
him of that privilege you do not make him
violate the Constitution of the United States.
Mr. CHAMBERS. But if we deprive him of
that privilege, then I say We violate the Con-
stitution of the United States.
Mr. CLARKE. I admit that it takes away
from him, by State authority, a privilege
which he has under the Constitution of the
United States. But that does not make that
roan violate the Constitution of the United
States.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Nobody says it makes that
man violate the Constitution of the United
States. We are violating the Constitution
of the United States; not the man himself
whom it is proposed wo shall deprive of a
constitutional privilege. The Constitution
of the United States says one thing; we
are asked now to say directly the opposite.
That is a plain proposition, is it not?
We have no right to say anything in opposition
to the Constitution of the United
States. That Constitution demands supreme
.allegiance, so far as its power extends, and
we cannot curtail any privilege which it
grants. If we can say what we are asked to
say here, then we can say anything else. If
we can put on one qualification, we can add
another. We can just as well say that no
man shall go to Congress who is not forty,
fifty, or sixty years of age; or that he may
go there when he is only fifteen or eighteen
years old. This is a matter not within our
jurisdiction. It has been confided to another |
tribunal, and that tribunal has exercised the
authority reposed in it by the people of the
United States. As I had the honor to say
upon another proposition yesterday, this is
an assumption of power upon our part not
only not belonging to us, but which has
been expressly delegated to another tri-
bunal. which tribunal has acted upon the
subject.
Now, I have no objection to saying that if
a man shall receive a commission for any
office under the General Government, he
shall be no longer permitted to fill an office
of the State, except he decline to accept the
commission within a given period. But I
cannot say that because he holds a State
office, be shall not be permitted to receive a
commission for any office under the Govern-
ment of the United States. Now, if there is
any difficulty arising from the fact that a man
can hold a United States commission in his
pocket, and still act as an officer of the State,
then that is a difficulty that requires a
remedy. But I can only say for myself, that
consistency will oblige me to vote against
any proposition interfering with the rights
of the Government of the United States.
Mr. SANDS. Agreeing entirely with my
friend from Kent (Mr. Chambers) in his con-
stitutional views about this matter, I have
only to say that if we were a body of legis-
ators, and this amendment was in the form
of a bill without a title, and I had to prepare
a title for it, I should be very apt to baptize
it with this title, "A bill to prevent the en-
isling of certain classes of people in the State
of Maryland, in the service of the United
States,"— i. e. members of the Legislature.
Now, I do not think it is a matter of any im-
portance, because I do not believe Uncle
Sam is going to get many recruits from that
class of people.
I only wish to say further that the contin-
gency referred to by the gentleman from
Kent, is provided for by the latter clause of
this section. He says that a member of the
Legislature has a constitutional right to ac-
cept an appointment, either civil or military,
under the Government of the United States ;
but that if he can do that without vacating
his seat in the Legislature, then it was a case
which required a remedy. The remedy is in
the last clause of this section. It provides
that his acceptance of a seat in Congress, or
of an appointment to any civil or military
office under the Government of the United
States, shall of itself vacate his seat in the
Legislature of this State. It does not leave
to him the option of resigning his seat or
not. If the General Government, as it has
the undoubted right to do, calls upon him
to serve it in any military or civil capacity,
the option of accepting or declining is left
with him. But this section expressly pro-
vides that his acceptance of that post shall
vacate his seat in the Legislature. It does |
