self in the service of the most corrupt tyranny; and tyranny has been thus furnished with new opportunities of indulging its malignity and revenge; of gratifying its envy of the rich and good; of increasing its means to reward favorites, and secure retainers for the worst deeds." In 1862 they declared the penalty of treason to be death and freedom to the slaves of the traitor; or imprisonment and fine, and freedom to his slaves. But no provision has been made whereby civil and political rights were to be forfeited; and it is too late to attempt to do so now, even by constitutional amendment.

The reconstruction committee do not pretend to claim the forfeiture of civil and political rights by virtue of the Constitution and laws of the United States. For though rather inconsistently, they call the people of the late Confederate States, at one time "insurgents, rebels and traitors," and as such, of course, answerable only to the laws of the United States, yet at other times, they call them "public enemies of the United States, conquered in war," and under the Committee's interpretation of the law of Nation governing the rebels of a civil war, that not only all civil and political privileges, but even the lives, liberty and property of all those people, are at the absolute disposal of their conquerors, subject only to their ideas of the requirements of humanity, certainly, enlightened civilization and christianity have done little to relieve war of the horrible barbarities of ignorant and despotic times, if any such law is now recognized in civilized countries, as applicable to a constitutional republic.

Vattel states the law of Nations thus: "If a town which made part of a republic, or a limited monarch, and enjoyed a right of sending deputies to a Supreme Council or the General Assembly of the State, be justly conquered by an absolute monarch, she must never more think of such privileges; they are what the Constitution of the new State to which she is annexed does not permit." but the United States government has not the power or right of "an absolute monarch," nor is "a right of sending deputies to the Supreme Council or General Assembly of the States' prohibited by the Constitution of that Government.

The non-intercourse Act of 13, July, 1861, fixed the legal relations between the United States and the Confederate States. The Supreme Court of the United States in the decision of cases necessarily involving those relations and depending upon them, expressly assert that "since that time, there has existed. between the United Statee and the Confederate States, civil, territorial war." After the passage of the non-intercourse Act by Congress, and after the civil war existed as decided by the Supreme Court, Congress, by a unanimous vote in one House, and with but two negatives in the other, declared to the people of the United States, and to the World, the object of the war.

In January, 1862, the Legislature of Maryland adopted a preamble and resolutions in reference to the war. They declared, "this war is prosecuted by the Nation with but one object, that, namely: of a restoration of the Union just as it was when the rebellion broke out. The rebellious States are to be brought back to their places in the Union without change or diminution of their constitutional rights. In the language of the resolution adopted by both Houses of Congress, at its extra session in July last, with remarkrble unanimity, this war is declared to be prosecuted not in any spirit of oppression, or for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, or purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the right, or established institutions of those States; but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution, and to preserve the Union with all the dignity, equality and rights of the several States unimpaired, and that as soon as those objects are accomplished, the war ought to cease." And resolved as follows, viz: "IV. Resolved, that Maryland is ready to fulfil all her constitutional obligations to the General Government, as a loyal State of the Union, and desires that the integrity of the Union may be preserved and the supremacy of the Constitution restored."

Subsequently, during the progress of the war, its object was modified so as to include the abolition of slavery by constitutional amendment. The amendment was proposed by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress, as then constituted, eleven States having by their own act withdrawn their representatives. Those States, after the close of the war, and the re-organization of their State governments, by their Legislatures, ratified the amendment. The thirty-ninth Congress, recognized those State governments as legal by accepting the ratification of the amendment by their Legislatures, and claiming and exercising the power to pass "the civil rights bill," and "Freedman's Bureau bill," in virtue of that amendment.

.

. The faith of the Federal Government and of the State of Maryland was thus most selemnly pledged to the Southern States and to the world, down to the close of the war, that its object was "to defered and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution, and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality and rights of the several States unimpaired, and that as soon as those objects should be accomplished, the war ought to cease.

Whatever view of their duty in this regard, may be taken by those now entrusted with the power of the Federal Government, the Legislature of Maryland cannot hesitate to assert the purpose of the State, to the utmost of her ability, to maintain her faith inviolate before the world.

We are therefore clearly of the opinion that the amendment in question having been proposed by two thirds of a

Congress from which the Senators and Representatives of eleven States of this Union were forcibly and illegally excluded, was not proposed in accordance with the requirements of the Constitution, and that that fact, of itself, presents an insuperable obstacle to the ratification of the amendment by the Legislature of Maryland. But if this fact were otherwise, your Committee are of opinion that the State of Maryland could not voluntarily assent to any of the propositions contained in the proposed amendment.

The passions of men, when highly excited, are too apt to render them blunt to and reckless of consequences. In the midst of high political excitement we are in danger of losing sight of the cardinal principles of our American system of government. It would be unwise to rashly disturb that admirable adjustment of the balance of powers between the Federal and State governments which our fathers made. They guarded against the dangers of consolidation. That now is the rock upon which our ship of State is in imminent danger of being totally wrecked.

The character of our government is thus truly described by the Supreme Court of the United States in 6 Peters 570. Judge McLean says: "The powers exclusively given to the Federal government are limitations upon the State authorities. But with the exception of these limitations, the States are supreme; and their sovereignty can be no more invaded by the action of the Federal government, than the action of the State governments can arrest or obstruct the course of the national power.'

No court, statesman or jurist, in former times, ever questioned the truth of this fundamental doctrine.

Now let us consider the first section of the proposed Article XIV.

The first clause of the first section relates to citizenship of the United States, and of the several States. Its object and effect is to give to Congress, instead of the State governments, the right to determine who shall be deemed citizens of a State, and what residence shall be required to constitute that citizenship. The law upon this subject is already well settled: "Every citizen of a State is ipso facto a citizen of the United States. 3 Story on the Const. 565; Rawle on the Const. 85, 86.

"And a person who is a naturalized citizen of the United States by a like residence in any State of the Union, becomes ipso facto a citizen of that State." 3 Story, 566.

And the Constitution of the United States declares that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges. and immunities of citizens in the several States."

In the judgment of your Committee, it is not safe to confer any additional powers upon Congress touching this subject. The latter clause of the first section declares: "Nor shall

any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This, and all other provisions of the amendment, must be read in the light of the 5th section, and of the interpretation already given by Congress to the same language in the 13th Amendment already adopted, namely, section 5: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.'

The clause under consideration, for the protection of life, liberty and property, will be found in the declaration of rights of every State, as a fundamental principle of free government. It is a subject of "internal government,' to regulate which is the sole and exclusive right of every State. The proposition to vest in Congress the power of supervision, interference and control over State legislation. affecting the lives, liberty and property of its citizens and persons subject to its jurisdiction, is virtually to enable Congress to abolish the State governments.

The second section relates to the apportionment of representatives among the several States. This, too, proposes to abridge the heretofore unquestioned rights of the several States, and to upheave the foundations so securely laid by our fathers. The basis of represeutation fixed by the Constitution is "numbers." "This scheme," says Story, "seems to have obtained more general favor than any other in the Convention, because it had a natural, universal connection with the rights and liberties of the whole people.

1 Story, 403: "Every Constitution of government in these United States has assumed, as a fundamental principle, the right of the people of the State to alter, abolish or modify the form of its own government, according to the sovereign pleasure of the people. In fact, the people of each state have gone much further, and settled a far more critical question by deciding who shall be voters, entitled to approve and reject the Constitution framed by a delegated body under their direction. In the adoption of no State Constitution has the assent been asked of any but the qualified voters; and women and minors, and other persons not recognized as voters by existing laws, have been studiously excluded. And yet the Constitution has been deemed entirely obligatory upon them, as well as upon the minority who voted against it. From this it will be scen how little even in the most free of republican governments, any abstract right of suffrage, or any original or indefeasible privilege has been recognized in practice. What may best promote the public weal, and secure the public liberty and advance the public prosperity in one age or nation, may totally fail of similar results under local, physical or moral predicaments essentially different."

"In no two of the State Constitutions will it be found that

the qualifications of the voters are settled upon the same uniform basis. So that we have the most abundant proofs that among a free and enlightened people, convened for the establishing their own forms of government, and the rights of their own voters, the question as to the due regulation of the qualifications has been deemed a matter of mere State policy, and varied to meet the wants, to suit the prejudices, and to foster the interests of the majority. The subject has been fully canvassed, as one of mere civil polity, to be arranged upon such a basis as the majority may deem expedient, with reference to the moral, physical and intellectual condition of the particular State."

The clause as it stands in the Constitution was adopted by a unanimous vote, and the Federalist remarks "the provisions made by the Convention appear to be the best that lay within their option."

The object of this second section is unmistakable. There are fifteen States of the Union having a large negro population, most of whom have been recently set free from domestic servitude. The object is to require these States to confer upon the negro the right of suffrage, or to deprive them of a large number of their present Constitutional representation. Otherwise, it is said, the Southern States will be great gainers by the rebellion. "The question before Congress,' says the Report, "is, whether conquered rebels may change their theatre of operations from the battle field, where they were defeated and overthrown, to the halls of Congress, and through their representatives seize upon the government they fought to destroy; whether the National Treasury, the army of the nation, its navy, its forts and arsenals, its whole civil administration, its credit, its pensioners, the widows and orphans of those who perished in the war, the public honor, peace and safety, shall all be turned over to the keeping of its recent enemies without delay, and without imposing such conditions as, in the opinion of Congress, the security of the country and its institutions may demand." It is somewhat difficult to conceive how this "change of base" could be successfully accomplished. The institution of domestic servitude and the right of secession, both involving the right of selfgovernment as it was asserted by the Confederate States, were the subjects of contest upon the "battle field, where they were defeated and overthrown." How "in the halls of Congress, through their representatives," they could hope for better success, reverse the decision of the "battle field,' and "seize upon the government," passes our comprehension.

It is undoubtedly time that freeing the slaves enlarged the basis of representation in the former slave States. But it was an incident which it was well known constitutionally attached to the fact of freedom. Leaving those States still