fluence of existing events around us. Far be
it, I hope, from the good people of this State,
and from their representatives anywhere, to
indulge in a process subversive of every prin-
ciple which we have regarded, and which we
now regard as necessary for the welfare of the
State, and the security of the citizen. The
more I think of this, the more I indulge the
hope that there are gentlemen here who will
pause.
What is to be the effect of this? It is a
matter of perfect knowledge, I suppose, with
every gentleman upon this floor, that there
are men charged with principles of secession,
who are as far from entertaining them as any
man upon this floor. Yet, if the military
officer should come into the neighborhood,
and be informed by any person, influenced
perhaps by the worst and most evil passion,
by personal hatred or malevolent feelings,
that such persons have secession principles,
they would be charged with secession, and
that would be the end of it. I do not care
how fair may have been the whole life and
conduct of any such person, he would have
no tribunal to resort to, no witness to ex-
amine.
I am not to be told that this is not to be the
case. It has been the case. My friend from
Queen Anne's now abseat, (Mr. Brown,) is
one of those who have experienced the effect
of this operation. They go to his house and
demand such a sum of money—a man as per-
fectly divested of any feeling of secession as
anybody on this floor—and he has no re-
dress, no remedy. In a civil tribunal we
have an appeal. But here one single blow,
like a flash of lightning, and the man is
prostrate at the foot of the military officer, be
he who he may, an intelligent man or other-
wise, a poor man or otherwise, a savage man
or otherwise. There is no redress, no appeal,
no exposition before the world of his case.
I ask gentlemen seriously and calmly to
divest themselves of this feeling which seems
to act upon them. In the name of good
sense, in the name of patriotism, and the in-
terest of the country, how can anybody ad-
vocate such a principle? If these principles
are sound, and if they justify action, why not
he consistent? Why come here to-day and
insert a proposition as necessary to the interest
and well being of the State, and to-morrow
violate every word of it?
I hope that sober reflection will enable us to
make some disposition of this case, so that we
shall not encumber our record with it. I
hope that there may not pass down to pos-
terity, on the same page, or within the same
book, these inconsistent propositions. I speak
from no passion. I have no personal interest
—I hope not. I am not within the purview of
that resolution. But I do say, as a friend of
the law, a friend of the Constitution, a friend
of consistency, a friend above all of the citi-
zens of my State, that I hope to see an end of |
this matter. I have felt it my duty to ex-
press my opinion, meaning no offence to any
gentleman personally, and my hope that under
this excitement no impulse may prevail which
upon sober reflection we would all discard. I
hope that the good sense and judgment of this
Convention will operate upon a sufficient
number of gentlemen at least lo have erased
from our journal such a proposition as is con-
tained in the resolution adopted yesterday.
Mr. SANDS. I do not propose to enter into
an argument or say one word upon the merits
of the order adopted yesterday, because this
is not the time. That order has been adopted.
I rise, however, to suggest to my excellent
friend and the Convention, a few of the con-
siderations which induce me to favor and to
urge the adoption of that order. I voted, I
believe, for each one of those articles in the
bill of rights, and I would to God that they
had been respected, I ask the gentleman,
out of what fact grows this order? Had you,
Mr. President, or I, when we voted for these
articles in the bill of rights, the slightest idea
of ever violating them? Not at all. Who
violated them? With whose sympathy and
connivance were they violated? Not mine,
sir. I utterly repudiate the charge. Our
bill of rights did, and always has declared
that no man should be seized or despoiled of
his liberty and right of personal property
without due process of law. Look at the
commentary upon this bill of rights which
has been written for us, in flame and blood,
for the last week or two. And by whom ?
Mark you, Mr. President; this order looks
to nobody but known rebel sympathizers.
Oh, no, sir; you are not to touch life, or
limb, or personal property, now, but a day or
two ago, when gentlemen were exulting and
exclaiming that the rebels were everywhere,
then you might take whatever you could lay
hand on. It was literally, "touch and go,"
or rather "touch and come along," it is no-
torious to the people of the State at large that
citizens of Western Maryland were prominent
actors ill those scenes of violence, and arson,
and theft, and every crime that can degrade
or disgrace a community. It is at such per-
sons as these that this order aims, and at no
innocent man. I would stand up, and I have
stood up, for men that I believed innocent, for
three or four years, during this terrible strug-
gle. I have stood by them as if they had
been my brothers, to protect them, in person
and property, whenever assailed, and I would
do it again; but as to marauders, I say they
have no rights which I respect or am bound
to respect.
Something must be done here in Maryland.
I say this in perfect kindness to my friends
upon the other side. Something must be
done in Maryland to verify this people. We
must embrace the doctrine that the State
having taken a position binds every man in
his life and his property to maintain it, or we |
