tleman rise in his place and say that the pro-
ceeding which this order contemplates, is in
conformity with any of these principles ?
Mr. SANDS. I rise in my place and say that
the principle of that order, if made operative
will prevent the burning of any man's house
and the taking of any man's goods and chat
tels in violation of the principles of the bill of
rights.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I understand that part of
the gentleman's argument. Let it go for
what it is worth. I say that I have no right
to take my neighbor's purse, because I think
I can make a better use of it than he can. I
have no right to take away a man's property
lest he should hire some man to commit a
murder. The argument is just as good. I
have no right to steal my neighbor's horse
because I think I can effect a good purpose
by it If a thing is wrong, it is wrong any
way; and you cannot make it anything else.
Mr. SANDS. Let me ask the gentleman if
your neighbor had a gun in his hand, and
you knew he was going to commit murder,
would not you take it from him ?
Mr. CHAMBERS Why, surely; and should
not violate any one principle here. Show me
the provision in the bill of rights which pre-
vents a man in such a case as that from act-
ing in self-defence, or in defence of his neigh-
bor.
Mr SANDS, [in his seat.] "Self-defence;"
that is it.
Mr. CHAMBERS, [continuing.] You might
as well talk about the right to put out a fire,
when your house is in flames. Here is a
plain unequivocal proposition. If a man
commits an offence, let him be indicted, and
tried, have counsel, have witnesses, and be
punished. I say, let every criminal be pun-
ished. These gentlemen have described vio-
lent offences. They make out these men to
be immensely criminal. Such offences were
never perpetrated before. Be it so. It is no
part of my business to lessen the enormity of
any imputation these gentlemen may make.
Is that to destroy the whole principle upon
which this government rests) every pillar
that supports it? Is that any reason why a
lieutenant or an ensign,, or any other military
officer deputed by the President, shall come
and say, in the first place, I demand to know
who perpetrated the offence?
A great mistake exists with regard to this
matter. The gentleman knows that his own
friends and neighbors have been charged with
being offenders when they were not offenders
But no matter whether they are or are not,
if this gentleman with the epaulette on his
shoulders chooses to say they are offenders
no power on the face of the earth can protect
the individual from any punishment that this
false assertion, as it may be, will induce the
officer to inflict upon his victim. It is a cry-
ing offence. A man has no chance of es-
caping. |
That is not a necessary effect. The law is
to punish a man for his crimes: but punish-
ment is not for crime here. It is for imputa-
tion. The gentleman tells us that there can-
not be any mistake; that they are to be " known
sympathizers. Known to whom? I say
to some malignant individual in the neigh-
borhood, and not necessarily known to any-
body else. The President cannot find among
us in every vicinity men personally familiar
with the neighborhood, and knowing who
are or who are not secessionists. He sends a
man who is a stranger; and he is to punish
known offenders. Known to whom? Will
the gentleman tell us who are to know the
offenders? Facts are stated with regard to
individuals. He has heard these facts. He
does not know them to be true. He has in-
formation, no doubt very satisfactory, but it
is no proof.
Mr. CUSHING. They are taken before the
provost marshal, and refuse to take the oath.
Mr. CHAMBERS continued. It has been cus-
tomary to require of witnesses upon the stand
that they should know something of their
own knowledge. Yet that officer, alone, in
violation of all these articles in your bill of
rights, which I have read, is to make the
charge, to decide without proof upon it, to
award the punishment and to inflict it. There
is hardly a proposition in your whole hill of
rights that this proceeding is not in conflict
with. All the power is here concentrated in
one individual. God knows of what charac-
ter, what degree of intelligence, what dis-
position to act justly, how subject to impure
influences. We act upon it in a state of per-
fect and entire ignorance. All we know is
that all these principles are violated.
The gentleman strangely says that we have
sworn to obey the Constitution and the laws of
the United States. Have not we also sworn
to obey the Constitution and laws of Mary-
land? Is Maryland sunk so deep beneath
the power of the general government, that its
laws and Constitution are not to have any
effect upon us? Are they not willing to have
both? How can a man profess to recognize
Constitution or law in the appointment of a
military officer who shall be jury, judge,
sheriff, jack ketch, and everything else? Is
that law? Is that the Constitution? No
sir; no, sir.
I I say there is but one appellation which
can possibly describe such a state of things.
It is the most perfect and complete military
despotism.
Allusion has been made to the past offences
of some people in Baltimore, who committed
great outrages at the election, and who are
known sympathizers, and who, claiming to be
a majority of the State, are prepared to do
this, that and the other. I say again, that I
do not stand before this body to exculpate
any man from any offence which the Legis-
lature of the State of Maryland, or the Congress
|
