members of the several State Legislatures, to the best of his ability he will preserve, and the executive and judicial officers, both protect, and defend the Constitution of the of the United States and of the several States, United States. Does he swear that his parashall be bound by oath or affirmation, to sup-mount allegiance is due to the general govport the Constitution of the United States, ernment? Did the fathers of the republic, announced the doctrine of the duty of obe- those who framed the oath, think it was nedience to and support of the Constitution cessary for them to require it? Yet we are and the laws of Congress passed in pursuance called upon here to announce that paramouut thereof; that a portion of the sovereignty of allegiance is due to the Constitution and the States being delegated, to the extent of Government of the United States, without the powers conferred by the Constitution on any distinction in reference to whether it exthe Federal Government, and another por-ercises its powers within the limits of the tion being retained by the States to the Constitution, or not. Article 6, section 3, extent of the powers not delegated to of the Constitution of the United States prothe United States by the Constitution, nor vides thatprohibited by it to the States, sovereignty thereby under our structure of government ceased to be any longer a unit and indivisible, but attached to or became a prerogative of the Federal Government, and the States, respectively, as the several portions of sovereignty were meted out to each. I search in vain for any form of oath required in the Constitution to be taken by any officer of the government, or by any citizen acting in any capacity, by which he swears that his paramount allegiance, or any allegiance, is due to the Constitution and Government of the United States. And I defy the chairman of this committee, (Mr. Stirling,) or any gentleman upon this floor, to point to any clause in that Constitution in which the doctrine is announced that paramount allegiance is due to the Constitution and Government of the United States. The Constitution announces no such proposition; and if it had contained any such, it never would have been adopted. What is the oath of office which the Constitution prescribes shall be taken by the President of the United States? Article 2, section 8, relating to the Executive of the United States, prescribes that "Before he (the President) enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be recognized as a qualification to any office, or public trust, under the United States." There is nothing there about paramount allegiance to the Constitution and Government of the United States. Those who framed the Constitution, passed in 1789 an act fixing the same form of oath-"to protect and support the Constitution of the United States." The act of June 1, 1789, prescribes this oath to be taken by all the officers of the United States: "I, A. B., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitutiou of the United States." That is what the fathers of the republic, who framed the Constitution, laid down as the form of oath to be taken by every officer under it. But you find there, Mr. President, no doctrine of paramount allegiance to the Constitution and Government of the United States, irrespective of the question whether it is administered within its proper sphere or not, such as is announced in this article. But, Mr. President, these well considered principles of the fathers seem now to be almost forgotten. In fact, the existence of a Constitution seems well nigh ignored; and "military necessity" and the "self-preservation of the Government"-not through the And from the day that the father of his forms of the Constitution, but according to country assumed the reins of government, the varying judgment of some inferior or down to the day when the present President subaltern-have been substituted as the law stood upon the portico of the capitol at Wash- of action. I repeat, not through the forms ington, and took this oath, no other oath has of the Constitution; for I will go as far as been pronounced, or required in form to be any man for the preservation of the Govtaken by any officer of the government. The ernment under the forms and through the chief executive officer of this government, modes prescribed in the Constitution. But clothed with his grand powers, with all the that is not now aimed at. And, as if power of the government to carry out and aspiring to resuscitate the dry bones and execute all the laws, with a power, when this defunct party forms of "blue-light Fedegovernment is constitutionally administered, ralism," soon no doubt to be succeeded greater even than that exercised by the Queen by a train of laws assimilated to the of England-the chief executive of the alien and sedition laws," it was reserved United States is required only to swear that for Maryland to experience the humiliation osition had been introduced here by some Mr. CLARKE. Governor Hicks did not save of hearing one of her sons-now representing | march to consolidated empire? If this propher in one branch of Congress-announce in the great commercial city of the Empire State, that the Constitution organized a na tional consolidated Government, and with a view of more firmly establishing such a consolidated Government in the midst of this sad struggle, which the Crittenden resolution declared should be waged, not for purposes of subjugation or to destroy the States or their institutions, but only to assert the authority of the Federal Government over the States in rebellion, it is proposed to bring the action of Congress to bear directly upon the States in rebellion, the essential feature of which proposition is that Congress shall assume jurisdiction over them. The "pestilent pretension of States' rights" is to be thus summarily disposed of, and, under the theory of "State suicide," or State forfeiture," or State abdication"-followed by the denial of "State rights, immortal and unimpeachable"-our structure of government is sought to be merged in one 66 consolidated head,' over which, under the plea of freedom to the African slave or the "abolition of slavery in the States through the war," ending in slavery to the white man—and I understand that the Cleveland Convention has announced that it is now time to maintain the freedom of the white man the goddess of "amalgamation, equality and fraternity' shall reign triumphant in orgies more wild, and scenes more terrible, than darkened the soil of France amid the days of the reign of terror. Why, I ask the gentleman from Baltimore city, (Mr. Stirling,) thus make the conservative old State of Maryland, to which he is to the manor born as well as myself, and whom I had the privilege in early days when we were starting out in our profession, and were in the same debating society to hear then announce doctrines as consistent with the proper structure and formation of the | government as I think I now hold; for I stand where I started, and where we stood then when we battled for the same good principles + Mr. STIRLING. With the permission of the gentleman, I will say that we were both whigs then, and he has now separated from me. Mr. CLARKE. I never was a whig in my life. The first vote I ever cast for a President, was for James Buchanan in 1856 Whiggery ended with Scott in 1852; and I happened then to be studying law somewhere, and I had not then commenced my political career. But the gentleman has arisen in political life upon the new issues which succeeded dead whiggery. I would ask the gentleman why should the State of Maryland, when down in old St. Mary's was first raised, amid those American wilds, the banner of civil and religious liberty-why make the State of Maryland lead the van in the onward Mr. SANDS. I said he did not save Maryland. I said that the people saved Maryland : and so they did. Mr. CLARKE. Well, sir, I will say this: that if the people of Maryland had had at that time a proper executive officer at the head of the government of the State of Maryland, the people of Marylaud would not only have saved the State of Maryland, but, acting through a proper executive officer, in my humble judgment, would have saved the Union. It is my candid conviction, uttered here to-day in the sight of high heaven, that there was not in the State of Maryland at that time, any desire to break up this Union. We desired to cling to the Constitution of the United States; we desired to save the country from the impending war. And when the gentlemen from the South came on here and requested the co operation of the State of Maryland-not for the pnrpose of getting out of the Union-but with the view of preserving the rights of all the States-they announced that if the South would only stand up to the doctrine of co-operation and maintain their rights, we would have no war, no disunion, but the government would be preserved intact. Mr. SANDS. In consideration of the good name and fair fame of a man of now worldwide reputation, which is now at stake, I will tell the gentleman if he will permit me, what Governor Hicks told me the day before the outbreak in Baltimore, was the mission of those southern gentlemen. MR. CLARKE. I know what it was. As I am only expressing my individual opinion, the gentleman can reply to me when I am through. If the Governor of this State had said then to those men-the State of Maryland shall not secede, we will not go with you in that; but we have rights and will cooperate with you to maintain those rights and if the South had been a unit upon that subject, the North never would have made war, and the rights of the South would have been maintained. I believe that a proper executive officer in the State of Maryland could have done more at that time to preserve the Union than any other man in the country; and, in my judgment, could have saved the Union. For we know now, when we look back to the history of those days of passion and excitement, that when the President of the United States had under discussion the question of peace and war, Secretary Chase was opposed to war, as well as a number of other northern men whose voices were heard imploring for peace. And, sir, what brought on the war? A small coterie of governors from the northern States, and some men in the border States who styled themselves Union men, as Andrew Johnson, of Tennessee, and others like him, called upon the federal authorities to apply force to put down the rebellion. And when this question is settled-I know not how it may be, but I hope it will be settled honorably to all parties and all men-when that is done, and we know all the facts, in my humble judgment, it will be found that the Union men of the border States did more to bring about this war, this sacrifice of blood and treasure, than even the men of new England-certainly more than Secretary Chase, and those who acted with him upon that question. I go further, and say, that the State of Maryland, manacled and chained, saw at that time great events transpiring around her, and was permitted not even to articulate a word, except as uttered by her Governor, who declared "he would see his right arm wither before it should ever be raised against his southern brethren," at the very time when he was allied with, and immediately afterwards known to be in council with those who precipitated a civil war upon the country. Why not, in this the first utterance which Maryland makes through a sovereign Convention, let her speake something worthy of her independence and dignity as a State? Why bring her in meek and lowly submission before the throne of Federal power, and make her utter, through a bill of rights, a sycophantic confession of paramount allegiance on the part of her people to the Constitution and Government of the United States, which no State in the Union has been senile enough to offer, or so forgetful of the principles of FREE government as to tolerate in its organic law. It is a spectacle of infantine weakness which astounds me more than anything that I have yet witnessed in the chapter of Maryland's history; for the reason that this professes to be the free will offering of men who have recently sworn "to bear true allegiance to the Constitution and Government of the United States and the State of Maryland," and not paramount allegiance to the former. My only explanaMy only explana tion of this course of the committee is this: "Little stars wish to reflect the light of the larger planets around which they revolve." And I should like to ask the gentleman from Baltimore city whether it originated in his brain, in the brain of the gentleman from Allegany, or the brain of the gentleman from Worcester, or the brain of the gentleman from Caroline. If I might be permitted to guess, to use a Yankee privilege, and gentlemen will remember now that I make no charge-I should say that it bears the evidence of the inspiration of a certain gentleman whom the Senator from Frederick last winter announced upon the floor of the Senate, in open session, was using his influence to place the notable Don Piatt-notable abroad as well as here-in command of the State of Maryland, with a view to carry out the purposes of those who were to call this Convention together. Mr. STIRLING. If the gentleman will permit me, I will say that the gentleman he alludes to never saw a word of this article unless he has read it in the newspapers. Mr. CLARKE. I make no assertion; but I say it bears the ear-marks of a certain Cooper Institute speech delivered in New York city; an the doctrine which the chief legal adviser of Col. Piatt announced last November, in the Military Headquarters at Baltimore, when the subject of allegiance underwent discussion there. Sir, the doctrine surpasses even the famous Schenck standard of loyalty. What is that? He says, in an order, dated October 27, 1863: "It is known that there are many evil disposed persons, now at large in the State of Maryland, who have been engaged in rebellion against the lawful Government, or have given aid and comfort or encouragement to others so engaged, or who do not recognize their allegiance to the United States, and who may avail themselves of the indulgence of the authority which tolerates their presence to embarrass the approaching election, or through it to foist enemies of the United States into power. It is therefore ordered : "1. That all provost marshals and other military officers do arrest all such persons found at or hanging about, or approaching any poll or place of election on the 4th of November, 1863, and report such arrest to these headquarters." That is what General Schenck says. He says nothing about paramount allegiance. Now I recognize an allegiance to the Constitution and Government of the United States, within the limits of the powers conferred upon that government by the Constitution. And then follows the form of oath, showing that this is no dogma even of this administration. The issue was made, and to a very great extent by the very same gentleman I have already alluded to. It is a doctrine-and here I particularize no individual of a set of men of whom the President has no doubt said | legiance due and owing from every subject to to himself, as Macbeth said to Banquo: "though I could With bare-faced power sweep him from my And bid my will avouch it, yet I must not, And it was against this very class of men that resolutions, as I read in the Baltimore American of yesterday, were directed, cautioning the people to keep guard over them in the Baltimore National onvention; and it was this same gentleman, the chairman of this committee (Mr. Stirling) who, when he was about to be appointed a delegate to carry out the doctrines of the administration, said: "Don't instruct us, but say that this delegation is requested to go for Abraham Lincoln." But the voice of the people of Baltimore shouted out: "We will not permit it to be a request, but you shall go for him first, last and all the time." Now let us see how well the gentleman will stand up to that. Mr. STIRLING. I do not see exactly what that has to do with the matter. It has no personal application to me, for gentlemen with me in the last Legislature, know that I was the first man here who offered a resolution declaring Mr. Lincoln the choice of the people of Maryland; and the gentleman voted against it. Mr. CLARKE. I did, and I do not claim to be a supporter of the administration. But since then the gentleman who represents the city of Baltimore in ongress, has been opposing Mr. Lincoln's administration, and doing all he can to defeat his important measures in Congress, and the gentleman from Baltimore city generally acts with him. However, I pass from these things, and come now to a discussion of high constitutional principles. In order to test the soundness of the proposition embodied in article 4 of the proposed Declaration of Rights, I shall first inquire what is meant by the terms "allegiance" and "paramount allegiance." "Allegiance is the tie or ligament of fidelity and obedience which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject. The thing itself, or substantial part of it, is founded in reason and the nature of government." 1 Black. Com. 336. "The idea was taken or borrowed from the feudal system. The oath of allegiance was taken to the superior lord or sovereign. To the inferior lord the vassal took an oath of fealty. The oath of paramount allegiance was considered as overriding all others. "Contra omnes homines fidelitatem fecit." There is an implied original, and natural al his sovereign." 1 Bl. Com 368. Allegiance is again defined in 1. Burrill's Law Dictionobedience, by which native born subjects.or ary p., as "the tie or bond of fidelity and citizens are bound to their sovereign, governforded them. See 2. Hill S. C. R., 1. 2. Kent ment or country, in return for protection afCom. 44., 1. Comstock R. 173. Allegiance is thus made the correlative of protection extended or afforded. Allegiance to the Government is measured by the protection given by the Government. If paramount allegiance is due to the Federal Government then paramount protection must be extended by the Federal Government Paramount allegiance involves the idea of liege allegiance; and when it comes in conflict with any other, overshadowing and cancelling all other forms of allegiance, irrespective of the question whether the government is exercising its proper powers or its usurped powers. If the proposition of the report of the majority of the committee be true, then the citizen must obey the general government in whatever and wherever it commands. Contra omnes civitates fidelitatem fecit. I put this case to gentlemen. The Constitution expressly provides that every State shall be entitled to have two Senators. Suppose Congress should pass a law which should say that Maryland should have only one Senator; and goes on farther to provide that in case the members of the Legislature of Maryland should vote for more than one Senator to represent the State in the Senate of the United States-with the Constitution remaining unchanged- they shall be subjected to pains, and fines and penalties. Will gentlemen tell me that the members of the Legislature of Maryland would be bound to vote for only one Senator, and that the State of Maryland would be thereby bound to yield her right to two Senators in Congress? If she would not, then you cannot say that your allegiance to the Federal Government is so paramount that it shall override all State action. But if the proposition of the committee is true, then it follows that the State must give up her two Senators and take one, and that the members of her Legislature shall vote for but one Senator instead of two. That is what it leads to. And hence I announce the doctrine to meet that proposition, that you are bound to obey the Constitution, and the laws of Congress passed in pursuance of that Constitution, and your allegiance is due to that extent; but that beyond that extent your allegiance is due to the State. And you are just as much bound not to obey the Federal Government when it undertakes to exercise usurped power, power not given it by the Constitution, as you are bound, when the State undertakes to violate its duties and its obligations, to maintain the authority of the laws of Congress and the Constitution, within their proper sphere and limit. If this doctrine be true, as asserted by the proposed article, then the citizen makes his pledge of allegiance against and in conflict with the States, viz., all the rights of the States. Contra omnes civitates fidelitatem fecit. Now, is this so, Mr. President? Is the allegiance to the Constitution and Government of the United States paramount, measured by the protection which the government is clothed with the power of extending by the terms of the Constitution? Nearly all the protection which the citizen enjoys is secured to him by the States. The States deal with all of his local rights. The States regulate most of his rights of liberty-if not all. The States exercise control over the domestic institutions of the citizens. It protects them in all of the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness And upon this point I refer to the Federalist, No. 45, page 215. "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.' Why is this Declaration of Rights put forth by the people of the State, unless upon the theory that the State, and not the Federal Government, affords protection to the extent of the great principles of government therein announced? What is the use What is the use of a Declaration of Rights on the part of the State, if everything is swallowed up in the consolidated, universal powers of the Federal Government? The Federal Government is more especially charged with the conduct of the foreign relations, and extends protection to its citizens in all matters appertaining to their rights with foreign and independent powers. The chief powers which it has, enabling it to afford protection to the citizen, are, 1st. The power to provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States. 2d. To regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes. 3d. To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States. 4th. To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations. 5th. To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and sea. 6th. To raise and support armies. 7th. To provide and maintain a navy. 8th. To provide for calling forth the militia, to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions, and to prohibit the States (and so protect the citizen) from doing any of the acts embraced within the tenth section of article one. "No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility. No State shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any impost or duties on imports or exports, &c. No State shall without the consent of Congress lay any duty of tonnage; keep troops, or ships of war, in time of peace; enter into any agreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign power; or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay." And without going more fully into detail, the protection which the Federal Government extends to the citizen is measured and limited by the powers of sovereignty conferred by the Constitution. The protection which the State affords is measured by the extent of the powers of sovereignty retained by the States or the exercise of which is not prohibited to them. Allegiance is due, therefore, partly to the Federal Government, and partly to the State Government. The sum of the allegiance which is due to the two, constitutes that allegiance which is due solely and as paramount allegiance to a government whose sovereignty is not divided or parcelled out as under our system, but is indivisible as in France, England, or Russia. The allegiance to neither the State nor the Federal Government is paramount, as overriding each other. They are separate and distinct. Their powers of sovereignty, provided the government is constitutionally administered, do not clash. They do not run in angular directions which meet, but in parallel lines, each pursuing its own sphere; or in orbits centrifugal and centripetal, where if each is confined to its own orbit, you have a system harmonious and beautiful, like that which the Deity has given in the canopy above us in the motion of the spheres. But if you disturb them, one running into the other, one interfering with the other, you have a state of anarchy and confusion as dark and as terrible as that which brooded over the spheres before the universe was brought into order and light by the hand of Divinity. And the question, which is to be obeyedwhere does the allegiance due to each lead the citizen-must be determined by the fact, which is acting within the constitutional limits or orbits assigned to them respectively. In other words, sovereignty which is the ultimate, absolute, uncontrolled power of govern |