MARYLAND. 



501 



giance to the Constitution and Government of the 

 I'niu-d States, within the limits of the powers con- 

 ferred by that Constitution, and is uot bound by any 

 law or ordinance of this State in contravention or 

 subversion thereof; and the powers not delegated to 

 the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited 

 by it to the States, "being reserved to the States re- 

 spectively, or to the people, every citizen of this 

 State ow'es allegiance to the State of Maryland, so 

 far as the sovereignty of the State has not been 

 affected by the Constitution of the United States and 

 the laws made in pursuance thereof, and is not bound 

 to yield obedience to laws made in direct violation of 

 the" Constitution of the United States, and in the 

 exercise of usurped powers. 



To this amendment, Mr. Sands, of Howard, 

 offered the following amendment : 



Provided, That nothing contained in this article 

 shall be construed as giving to the State a right to 

 secede from the Federal Union, or to form a Confed- 

 eration with any other State or States of the Union, 

 or to seize by force of arms or otherwise any proper- 

 ty of the United States situate and being within the 

 limits of this State, but that these acts^are hereby 

 expressly forbidden. 



On the next day the amendment of Mr. 

 Sands was adopted yeas 45; nays, 30. The 

 amended proposition was then rejected without 

 a division, and the question recurred on the 

 original article, when a motion was made to 

 strike out the word "paramount," and a gen- 

 eral discussion ensued. 



Mr. Gushing, of Baltimore City, in favor of 

 the article without any change or amendment, 

 took the floor : 



He alluded to the protection that had been given 

 the people of Maryland when the State had been 

 invaded, and said the General Government had al- 

 ways exercised its paramount supremacy for the 

 good of the people. There was no authority in Mary- 

 land to protect the people but that of the Govern- 

 ment of the United States, and it was the least that 

 the people could do to recognize the paramount alle- 



fiance they owed to that Government, and he would 

 e happy to record his vote in favor of the article. 

 He contrasted the spirit actuating the Government 

 of the United States and the so-called " Confederate" 

 Government, saying that the former savored of the 

 mild, merciful, and paternal spirit of our Heavenly 

 Father, and the other of the malignant spirit of the 

 Father of Lies, and that the difference between the 

 t-.vo was the same as that between Heaven and Hell. 



On the next day, June 3d. Mr. Belt, of Prince 

 George County, in opposition, contended: 



That "allegiance" was due to the State and 

 "obedience" to the General Government, and said 

 be was opposed to the article because it tended to 

 the adoption of the theory of the consolidation of 

 Government, which he believed had been a curse to 

 the country for the past three years. 



The discussion was resumed on June 13th, 

 when Mr. Miller, of Anne Aruudel, in opposi- 

 tion said; 



He would base his argument on three propositions, 

 which he held to -be true : First. That the Colonies, at 

 the time of the accomplishment of the Revolution, 

 were sovereign and Independent States. Second. 

 The Constitution of the L nited States was adopted 

 by the people as citizens of the distinct and independ- 

 ent States to which they belonged at the time'of its 

 adoption, and that each of them was then considered 

 and recognized as a sovereign State. Third. That 

 the Government of the United States thus created is 

 of a limited character, confined to the exercise of 



limited powers, and all such powers as are not 

 granted to it or implied are necessarily held by the 

 people. 



Mr. Miller argued at length in support of his views, 

 saying that he was opposed to the doctrine of Seces- 

 sion as a constitutional right, and that he also op- 

 posed the doctrine that we are a people living under 

 a consolidated Government with unlimited powers. 

 The States form distinct and independent portions 

 of the Government, and in their sphere are no more 

 subject to the control of the Government of the Uni- 

 ted States than the latter is to the control of the 

 State. The laws of the United States are supreme 

 as to all their constitutional objects, and the laws of 

 the State are the same, and it is no more the duty 

 of the citizen to sustain the laws of the Federal Gov. 

 eminent against the laws of the State, than it is 

 his to sustain the laws of the State against those 

 of the Federal Government. Each are supreme in 

 their constitutional sphere. In case of a conflict 

 where they come under judicial cognizance we have 

 the Supreme Court of the United States to appeal to, 

 and several times that body has declared laws of 

 both the United States and of the States to be null 

 and void. There may arise cases which cannot be 

 brought before that tribunal. Who, then, is to be 

 the arbiter? Mr. Miller read extracts from an ad- 

 dress delivered by John Quincy Adams before the 

 New York Historical Society in 1839, from Edward 

 Everett's letter accepting the nomination for Yice- 

 Presiderrt in 1860, from Secretary Seward's letter of 

 instructions to Minister Adams in 1861, and from 

 Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist, declaring that 

 in a case of that kind arising, it would be better for 

 the States to separate than to attempt to live togeth- 

 er by coercion, and that such a course would only 

 end in ruin. 



Mr. Miller also said, during the course of his re- 

 marks, that the Government of the United States 

 had no right to build a fort, dockyard, arsenal, or 

 any building, except by the consent and permission 

 of the State wherein such building was to be located. 

 The Naturalization laws of the United States do not 

 require those intending to become citizens to swear 

 allegiance to the Government of the United States, 

 although they have been citizens of a foreign nation- 

 ality and sworn allegiance thereto. The person be- 

 coming naturalized swears only to "support" the 

 Constitution of the United State*, and gives his 

 "allegiance" to the State of which he may happen 

 to become a citizen. 



On the loth, the subject was again under 

 discussion, when Mr. Eidgely, of Baltimore 

 County, said: 



This question was as old, if not older, than the Con- 

 stitution itself, and had been a bone of contention ever 

 since the formation of the Government ; it had divided 

 the country into sectional parties in the first Congress 

 which met under the Constitution, and during the 

 two first Administrations of the Government had 

 supplied the South with sectional capital in their op- 

 position to Mr. Hamilton's bank project, also to his 

 suggestion to assume the payment of State debts; 

 tolhe excise laws and tonnage duties; and in Mr. 

 Adams' Administration, to the alien and sedition 

 laws. 



During the two succeeding Administrations it had 

 arrayed the North against the South, in its opposi- 

 tion to the Embargo ; and the war of 1812 had led to 

 the claim of State Rights bv the North, and the right 

 of secession, and the doctrines of the Hartford Con- 

 vention. In reviewing the relative positions occupied 

 by the North and the South in the early days of the 

 Republic, he had reached the conclusion that this 

 doctrine had its origin rather in the local interests of 

 the partv which had expressed it, than in any love 

 for the Constitution, or desire to restrain its func- 

 tions. The South was inflamed by the introduction 

 of petitions from Pennsylvania, in'the first Congress, 



