Tuesday,]

"I do swear (or affirm) that I am duly qualified, according to the Constitution of this State, to exercise the office to which I have been appointed, and will, to the best of my abilities, discharge the duties thereof, and preserve, protect, and defend, the Constitution of this State, and of the United States."

There the oath is taken by every officer to do this to the best of his ability. And shall Massachusetts, after coming into this Convention, go out of it with a less asseveration of her fidelity to the Union than South Carolina? The result is, that there are twenty-three States in this Union which have a formula of oath of fidelity to the Constitution of the United States. The only States that have the omission of it, are New Hampshire, Vermont and Massachusetts, in New England; Pennsylvania, which has it in her statute laws, Delaware, North Carolina, Arkansas, and Virginia, which last State has never had any form of oath whatever in her Constitution.

There are eight States, including Massachusetts and Virginia, and six States, excluding those two, in which this oath is omitted; and now I have only to ask, in conclusion, shall Massachusetts remain one of those eight States without this oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States, or shall we join the other twenty-three States and stand pledged solemnly before God to sustain this Union and support its Constitution and laws?

Mr. BUTLER, of Lowell. In my judgment, Sir, the trouble which has arisen in the mind of the learned gentleman who represents Wilbraham, comes from a mistake of fact and a mistake of law. He mistook the historical fact yesterday, and in my judgment he very much mistakes the law to-day. He stated yesterday, with some heat, that this was nullification-that unless we put into our fundamental law an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States, we are guilty of nullification; and he said to the learned gentleman from Boston, (Mr. Crowninshield,) who ventured to suggest some objections to the proposition, that he did not expect nullification from that quarter. Now, Sir, I do not mean to be either dragged into bad fact or bad law by any threat of nullification, when I remem-" ber that the State which has got the most stringent oath of allegiance to the Union, where they swear to serve, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, is South Carolina, whose very name is now the synonymn of nullification. We find from this, in the first place, that oaths do not make allegiance—oaths do not prevent nullification; and if we have no other pledge of fidelity to the Union than these high professions, I am very much afraid they will fall short when we come to apply to them the rule, "By their works ye shall know them." Massachusetts should stand upon her works, and not upon her professions; and I trust that gentlemen in this Convention will be content to take their stand upon their works and not upon highsounding professions of attachment to the Union, for I think that a little less of those would be in quite as good taste. Now, Sir, the learned gentleman who represents the highest laws of the United States in this district, told us yesterday that he did not know how to indict a man who should refuse to take an oath of allegiance, and should undertake to discharge the duties of an office without doing so. I am sorry, Sir, for that

confession, for it may be that we shall be in danger of having nullification instilled into us by the taking away of the fear of prosecution. I cannot, of course, presume to fh-truct the great ability and learning of the district attorney of Massachusetts, but I would like to ask whether he could sustain any indictment for misdemeanor, nonfeasance or malfeasance in a public officer. The gentleman says he does not see how it could be done except by United States statute. I will ask him how he, as an United States officer, is going to prosecute in the United States court for nonfeasance or malfeasance under United States law? Will that help him in any way? Can the district attorney go any further under United States law than he can under State law?

Mr. HALLETT. If the gentleman will allow me, I would like to have him tell me whether, in the United States courts, officers can indict any man at common law?

Mr. BUTLER. Without presuming to be either a Daniel or a Solomon, I will say that they could not. I never heard that they did.

Mr. HALLETT. Very well. If they cannot indict under common law, they cannot indict for misdemeanor or malfeasance except as the statute specially imposes a penalty for an offence committed.

Mr. BUTLER. There I take issue, distinctly and decidedly. It is a well settled principle of law in every land, that where a statute imposes a duty and omits the penalty, the non-performance of that duty in the officer on whom it is imposed, is indictable as a misdemeanor by virtue of statute law-that law which follows disobedience of all statutes. But without going into that, I will say that here is the first statute passed by the first congress of the United States; and what duties are imposed in the first section of the first chapter of that statute? It imposes an obligation to take the oath of allegiance upon every executive and judicial officer of every State, and upon all members of State legislatures. Now the gentleman says that Massachusetts has provided that attorneys at law shall take the oath of allegiance to the United States; and why should she do that. If judges are not obliged to take that oath under Massachusetts law, why should she make attorneys take it? It is because it is intended to relieve a doubt whether attorneys were either executive or judicial officers. Then he says, we have by statute imposed an obligation on militia officers to take this oath. That is very true; but, Sir, it is because militia officers are neither executive officers nor judicial officers. In these two instances we have imposed an obligation on these two classes of officers to take an oath of allegiance to the United States, which they were not required to take by the statute which has been referred to, or by the Constitution. The Constitution of the United States in its sixth article expressly provides that "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." And, Sir, I say again, that the very first section of the first act which was passed under this Constitution, provided what form of oath should be taken by the officers who were named in this article of the Constitution. This Constitution of the United States and the laws of the United States

[May 31st.

made in pursuance of the Constitution, are made the supreme law of the land by the same article of the Constitution from which I have just read; and does the gentleman mean to say that if we put this provision into our Constitution we can make it anything more than the supreme law of the land? It is now high above all laws which we can make, and will the insertion of this provision in our Constitution make it any more so? Here is a distinct and well-defined provision of the Constitution, under which we have lived ever since 1789, and we have always acted upon it. Now I must say, that I think it fell from that gentleman with something of a bad grace, to say that he doubted whether the executive officers of this Commonwealth, or the members of the legislature, when they were swearing to support the Constitution of the United States, knew where that provision came from. It is usually safe for him to suppose that what he does not know, nobody else does; but in this particular instance, I must beg him to excuse me.

Mr. HALLETT. If the gentleman will allow me to interrupt him, I would ask him to have the kindness to inform me when he learned that fact -and if he knew it yesterday, why he did not enlighten the Convention?

Mr. BUTLER. I tried to get the floor, but did not succeed. I did enlighten one gentleman who sat near me; but the gentleman from Wilbraham and the gentleman from Boston had the discussion all their own way, and I could not get the floor. That is the reason that I did not enlighten the Convention yesterday. Sir, I knew this ever since the time when, as justice of the peace, I swore in the first militia officer. I then had to make out a certificate to the following effect, and I have made a great many since:--

"This may certify that A. B., commissioned as within, on this day of , A. D. personally appeared and took and subscribed the oaths required by the Constitution and laws of this Commonwealth, and a law of the United States, to qualify him to discharge the duties of his office."

I have known this ever since then; that was in 1836, and I commenced my first tour in that business sometime in 1840. Now, Sir, let us go back and get the history of the matter right. We were told yesterday by the learned gentleman, and he has repeated the same thing in substance to-day, that in the first Convention, when this Constitution was framed, no other oath was required than that of allegiance to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, because there was no Constitution of the United States at that time, and therefore there was no occasion for it. The gentleman is again mistaken both in the fact and the law.

The provision therein contained that no other oath should be taken, was not put in the original Constitution, but was reported by the Committee on Oaths, Subscriptions, &c., of which Daniel Webster, somewhat known as a constitutional lawyer, was chairman. That was reported in 1820, after we had been living for thirty years under the Constitution of the United States; and to make the fact still worse for the gentleman's argument, there was in the original oath a recognition of the authority of the congress of the United States, which was put in by the first Convention. The gentleman was misled by looking at the revised Constitution only, which we are

Tuesday,]

allowed to read and refer to by permission of Judge Cushing; but if he had gone back to the original document he would have found this, which I will read for his information.

Originally there were two oaths required; the first of them is that "I, A B, do declare that I believe the Christian religion and have a firm persuasion of its truth," &c. The other oath is as follows:

"I, A B, do truly and sincerely acknowledge, profess, testify and declare that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is, and of right ought to be, a free, sovereign and independent State; and I do swear that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the said Commonwealth, and that I will defend the same against traitorous conspiracies and all hostile attempts whatsoever; and that I do renounce and abjure all allegiance, subjection and obedience to the king, queen, or government of Great Britain, (as the case may be,) and every other foreign power whatsoever; and that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate, hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, superiority, pre-eminence, authority, dispensing or other power, in any matter, civil, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this Commonwealth; except the authority and power which is or may be vested by their constituents in the congress of the United States."

It will thus be seen that our fathers in 1780 put in a recognition of the power which had been placed in the congress of the United States, and the remainder of the oath is nearly as we now take it. In 1787 the sixth article of the Constitution of the United States provided for an oath of allegiance to itself as independent, and in 1789, the first Act under the Constitution was passed, providing for the form of oath to be administered, and ordering all members of State governments to take it, omitting, however to include attorneys-atlaw and militia officers; but another law of the United States was subsequently passed applying it to the militia. Thus stood the law until 1820, when the matter came under revision, and great trouble arose in the Convention of 1820 upon this subject, to decide whether the oath of allegance should be struck out or kept in. Mr. Webster, on that occasion, made a report which was attacked on all hands; and his report was, that no oath except that of allegiance to the State and for a faithful discharge of duty should be required in this Commonwealth, leaving, of course, the supreme law of the land-the Constitution of the United States and the laws of the United States-to stand where it did before. In that Convention, Sir, with Judge Parker in the chair, and consisting of a roll of honored names, whose works, and not whose professions, have made them truly national, no man ever suggested that there was any danger, or any nullification anywhere in consequence of the adoption of such a proposition as this. I think this is perhaps a enough to cause us to criticize the statement of the gentleman when he says that we have fallen into the same error that the Convention of 1820 fell into. The -query is, whether they fell into an error. They were men not likely to err-their minds were active and acute; and although they might err in some respects with regard to political matters, as perhaps the gentleman and I would readily agree, yet upon a matter like this, as to the allegiance which we owe to the general government, I think they were quite as careful as we can be.

Now, Sir, we have then, that Convention called upon this subject, and that great man,-whom

OATHS AND SUBSCRIPTIONS. BUTLER.

my friend for Wilbraham, (Mr. Hallett,) will agree was sufficiently national to the day of his death,-Daniel Webster, reporting that no other test or oath should be required. Now, what did that mean? It was simply designed to cut off the oath in relation to the Christian religion, and that of abjuration. The time had come, in 1820, when it was not necessary for any man to swear that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is, and of a right, ought to be free, a sovereign and independent State. The time when such an oath was requisite, had passed by. Nobody thought there was any necessity to swear any such thing. It was an opinion which swearing would not strengthen, would not make more fervent in its action, would not more firmly settle.

Now, I pray my friend for Wilbraham, why cannot he let the oath of allegience to the United States stand, where the Convention of 1820 left the oath of abjuration? Strike it out for the reason, that swearing to it will add nothing to it. It stands binding of itself, by the supreme law of the land, and I give it full force. I trust there is no man in this Convention or out of it, who can say to me, "stand back, I am holier than thou" in adherence to the Union. I want no such argument addressed to me.

I have had occasion, and often too, to take the oath of allegiance to the United States, and, Sir, I am in no danger of disobedience to the laws of the Union, even, if the gentleman's theory be correct, that he cannot indict me if I break that oath, and until he can show me a better effect of the oath of allegiance, than we find in our sister State of South Carolina, when it is well known, she swears most and does least; I pray he shall not insist upon its being incorporated into the Constitution. Let us swear less and do more, and ask them to swear less and do more.

Now, Sir, I have endeavored to give you a history of the matter as it stands. I have endeavored to give it as it appears to me, and I stand upon the position, whether this oath is in or out of the Constitution, it is still the supreme law of the land. If we put it in, do we add anything? No. Take it out, and do we take away anything? No. It is still the supreme law of the land by the Constitution of the United States. If we should pass a resolution to this effect to-day, and it should be adopted by the people, it would be blank paper, and even worse, and of no binding force whatever, for we have a provision in the Constitution of the United States, to the effect that all laws and provisions in contravention of that Constitution shall become wholly void, and that all laws repugnant thereto, shall be void. Where is the occasion for this provision?

I grant you, Maine has put it into her Constitution. I grant you, that Rhode Island, and some other States, have put it into their Constitutions, and, that they have inserted it in a manner, to which the gentleman for Wilbraham did not object yesterday. When the Chair suggested to the gentleman, whether the oath to support the Constitution of the United States might not be put in after the oath of office and as a part of it, the gentleman said, with some heat, "No; this is too important an oath to be put in a parenthesis. I want it to stand by itself." Yet, he produces the oath of allegiance of the State of Louisiana, as the best form of this oath. Now, what is that oath? Those who take that oath do not swear any allegiance to the United States. All they

[May 31st.

swear to, if criticized closely, will be found to be, that they will do their duties according to the Lest of their ability, according to the laws of the United States, and the laws of the State of Louisiana. There is no oath of allegiance in it. It simply provides that he shall do his duty in a particular manner. There is no 44 "defend," no "preserve," no "protect," as there is in the oath of allegiance of the State of South Carolina.

In the Constitution of Louisiana, it is not only in parenthesis, but it is hardly that, and yet, the gentleman says it is the best form of the oath. I pray the gentleman to consider why we want it at all. It is the supreme law of the land, made so by the Constitution; our State officers have always obeyed it, and we have lived under it for sixty years, and no complaint. And, really, does he think it would make Massachusetts any more true to the Union if we should put it into the Constitution?

He says, we should recognize it. We did, Sir, when we sent the great men, whom we did send, to assist in forming the Constitution of the United States. We have recognized it ever since. We recognized it when the gentleman for Wilbraham was sworn into office, as attorney and counsellor of law of the United States. We recognize it every time a military officer takes the oath of office. We recognize it every time our legislature comes together. And whether we recognize it or not, it is the supreme law of the land, and, like the law of gravitation, will operate of itself.

I see no occasion for this amendment. In New Hampshire, they have not inserted it into their Constitution, nor have they in Vermont. In Virginia, there is no oath of office contained, either in the Constitution formed in 1830, nor in that formed in 1851. In neither of those Constitutions can I find any oath of allegiance. And will the gentleman accuse the Commonwealth of Virginia with being a nullifying State?

In the Convention of 1830 were Madison, and Monroe, and Chief Justice Marshall. Why was it that they did not find out that Virginia would not be in the Union, unless the oath of allegiance should be inserted in their Constitution? Why was it not discovered by them, and especially by that pryer into everything-John Randolphwho never left any stone unturned, even if it lay just as well the other side up?

Now, Sir, I have cited these examples of other States, and without following my friend (Mr. Hallett) into his rhetoric about our young sister State, California-very beautiful and effective, undoubtedly-and without attempting to answer that which was not capable of being answered, it being too well put-and agreeing that she, (California,) being a young, and a new State, and being a little doubtful as to where she belonged, it was well that she should swear allegiance, I would say that for us, who have known for sixty years where we belonged, it is not necessary to have such an oath.

I am still of opinion that neither good taste-because I would be governed by that, that neither the law of the land-for that is supreme over us, that neither a manife-tation of fidelity to the Union, or any other consideration, requires us to put that oath into the Constitution. We have lived well for sixty years under it, and why should we alter it?

But as the learned gentleman for Wilbraham who has addressed the Convention upon this su'

Tuesday,]

ject, has put two questions to me, one, upon a matter of law, which I tried to answer, and the other upon a matter of fact, which it was easy to answer, he will allow me to put one question to him, to which I should like a categorical answer.

Will he tell me where the United States District Attorney gets a single scintilla of authority from the State legislature, constitutional or otherwise, to indict a man in the State courts? And suppose we put this oath into the Constitution, will he show me the form of an indictment for violating the oath? because, I think-for he is quite correct in matters of common law-I think, I say, that he will find it still more difficult to frame an indictment under a State law, in the courts of the United States.

Mr. HALLETT. Under the laws of the United States, no person can be found guilty of any offence, unless it is set forth in some statute, the penalty for the transgression of which must be specified. Now the Act of 1789 attached no penalty for perjury in the courts of the United States, in reference to the oath to support the Constitution of the United States. No law of the State requires that oath. Consequently it is not perjury in the courts of the United States, or in the courts of the Commonwealth. When it shall be incorporated in the United States Constitution, then it will become an oath administered in our own jurisdiction, and it would be cognizable as perjury in the State courts.

Mr. BUTLER. I asked for bread, and he gave me a stone. I asked the question, where does the District Attorney of the United States get the authority from the State legislature to indict a man in the State courts?

Mr. HALLETT. I answered the general question legally, when I said that no indictment could be made of offences, unless the penalty was attached. Of course, no district attorney could indict.

When, therefore, I referred to the fact that there was no United States law defining the crime and penalty of the offence under consideration, of course the gentleman would know that, in the United States courts, there could be no indictments under State laws.

Mr. BUTLER. I admit the gentleman did offer an argument in answer, and I ought to have understood the argument.

Then, I understand him to agree that no State legislature can enable him to indict any body for a violation of this oath. What, then, becomes of his argument of yesterday, that he wanted this oath because there was no power now to indict, for, unless it was inserted, he did not know how to indict a man?

I agree with him that there is none, and if we insert it, it does him no good, and it does no one any good. And I ask him whether, in the United States courts, the State courts, or in any other courts under heaven, he ever heard of an indictment for perjury for a violation of the official oath? If he has, I should like to see the page of that law book which records it.

I undertake to say that no indictment ever yet was framed for perjury upon the official oath. For certain derelictions of official duties, indictments can be framed, but perjury on official oath is hardly one of those crimes.

For all these reasons, because it gives no greater power or efficiency to the United States officers; because it will not aid in executing any United States law in this Commonwealth; be

cause it is not required by good taste, good law, or good logic, I trust that the Report of the Committee, which has, at least, the merit of being precisely in the same terms as the Report of the Committee already referred to, under t'e, lead of Daniel Webster, will receive t'e unanimous support of the Convention, as it did the unanimous support of the Committee who reported it.

Mr. HALLETT. I wish to say one word in explanation. I did not come here to measure swords with the gentleman who has just taken his seat, as I might upon the stump, if we were engaged in a canvass upon political points. I came here with different views, and I am entirely willing to concede to that gentleman now, and for the remainder of the session, all that extreme smartness which he is so am! itious of acquiring a reputation for in this body. He shall be pronounced the smartest man at repartee upon this floor, and whatever expense. I may be at, in his acquiring that reputation, I shall not regret it.

The only point he has undertaken to make is really that it is of no consequence—that after all it amounts to nothing whether it be put into the Constitution, or kept out of it. If it be strictly a matter of indifference, then it seems to me the predominance is decidedly in favor of giving the oath a form in the Constitution.

As it respects another suggestion of the gentleman, upon the point of law which he has raised in regard to the prosecution of officers, I believe and hold it to be law, that in this Commonwealth a party who falsifies any oath which is prescribed by law, becomes liable to indictment for perjury. If no such indictment has been framed in this Commonwealth, it is because public officers have performed their duties with fidelity, and have not committed perjury. Officers are guilty of perjury in the violation of the oath of office. If this were not so, why does he take the oath of fidelity? If he is only liable to prosecution and civil suit, for acts of office, why take the oath at all, for he could be indicted and prosecuted in the same way, without the oath as with it.

Another suggestion which is made, is that this matter was embraced in the old Constitution. Why, Mr. Chairman, the old Constitution had, in it the oath of abjuration, the effect of which was to renounce all allegiance to Great Britain. There was also in that Constitution an oath to support the Christian religion, or declaring a belief in the Christian religion. But in consequence of a concurrence in the powers of the congress of the United States, relative to this matter, the oath of abjuration became of no importance in 1820. The oath to support all those laws or delegated powers which were given to the congress of the United States, had ceased to be of any importance, because it was originally inserted under the old Confederation, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, which renders such an oath upon the part of officers of particular State, unnecessary. When the subject was before the Convention of 1820, the amendment proposed, was simply in the form of an oath of abjuration of allegiance to Great Britain, which it provided for abolishing; the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, having rendered that oath unnecessary. It also proposed to abolish the oath requiring a belief in the Christian religion. The discussion in that Convention, so far as I am able to ascertain, upon this matter, was confined to this oath of abjuration, and as to the

[May 31st.

right of the Commonwealth to require a declaration upon the part of its officers, of belief in the Christian religion. In the report of the Debates of that Convention, which I have before me, I am not a' le to find one word with reference to an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States. I shall therefore conclude that the subject was not brought to the attention of the Convention of 1820 at all. I do not think that it entered into the mind of Daniel Webster, or of any other gentleman in that Convention, that they were either leaving out or putting in this oath. The matter was not suggested at all, but passed over without notice, as it did in a number of other States, when revising their constitutions. But, Sir, if you will look at the constitutions of the States which have been formed since the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, you will find that not a single one, (I mean, not a single original Constitution,) has been formed since that time which does not contain an oath of allegiance to the State for which the constitution was framed, and of fidelity to the Constitution of the United States. Let us then follow the example of those States, and when we put into our Constitution an oath of fidelity to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, let us also declare our fidelity to the Constitution of the United States.

And now, Mr. Chairman, let me say in conclusion, that if that distinguished man, to whom allusion was made by the gentleman from Lowell, (Mr. Butler,) were to stand here to-day, full of the love of this Union, with which he retired from his public labors, and the question were to arise, whether we should place in our Constitution an oath of fidelity to this Union, need I ask what would be the voice of that great man? Sir, his answer would be, as I am sure no gentleman in this Convention can doubt-"put it into your Constitution."

Mr. BIRD, of Walpole. I desire to make a single statement in relation to a remark of the gentleman for Wilbrahamn, (Mr. Hallett). That gentleman made the statement that only eight States in the Union had omitted this oath of allegiance to the United States from their Constitutions. Now, Sir, I have looked over the Constitutions of the several States with some degree of care, and I find there are seventeen States which require the oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States, and fourteen which have no such requirements. I may, of course, be mistaken in this. I may have overlooked that provision in some of the Constitutions where it exists; but I have been unable to find it except in the Constitutions of seventeen States; while in the Constitutions of the other fourteen States I find no such requirements whatever. I repeat, that I may be mistaken, but I make the statement, and let it go for what it is worth. I am unable to find this requirement in the Constitutions of New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolinia, Georgia, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, Arkansas, and Wiscon

sin.

Mr. HALLETT. I think the gentleman from Walpole has made a mistake in his calculation. I have before me a list of the States which have such requirements in their Constitutions, with the passages containing them quoted. I do not wonder at the gentleman's error in making the calculation, for this provision in some of

the Constitutions, is so connected with other matters that it is difficult to find it in a hasty search. The only States which have not this constitutional provision, are New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, and Georgia; and Georgia has left the regulation of the matter to her legislature. I have here before me the provisions in the Constitutions of Indiana, Tennessee, Missouri, and Arkansas, requiring that such an oath shall be taken; and I will refer the gentleman more particularly to that in the Constitution of Ohio, which is a very significant form of oath, and directly to support the Constitution of the United States. So that I am very certain I am correct in saying that there are only eight States where this requirement is omitted in their Constitutions; or nine, if that of Virginia is included; and in that State no form of oath whatever is prescribed, either to support the Constitution of the United States, or to support that of the Commonwealth. Mr. KEYES, for Abington. It occurred to me, yesterday, when this amendment was proposed, and was being discussed so profoundly by the legal gentlemen of the Convention, that an amendment might very properly come in something like this. "I swear to support the Constitution of the United States as I understand it." [Laughter.]

Now, Sir, I believe there is very high authority for such an amendment as that. If I am not mistaken, Andrew Jackson, who was a man of some consequence, in the estimation of the gentleman for Wilbraham, at least, proposed this very measure, or at least acted upon it himself, and therefore, I suppose, recommended it to the people of the United States.

But, Sir, I have been very much gratified to hear the gentleman for Wilbraham profess himself a States Rights man, as he has done to-day. There was a time when he talked very differently upon that subject. I recollect well when I saw that gentleman in one of the halls of this government when we thought the Constitution and Jurisdiction of Massachusetts and those of the Unitted States were likely to come in conflict, when he spoke in terms of the most utter contempt of the authority of Massachusetts. I remember well with what indignation he spoke of the pretensions of a Massachusetts justice of the peace when the officers of the United States were about with their commissions. But now, Sir, if he has got to think that Massachusetts has any influence in this matter, that she has any rights to be respected, I am glad to know it.

Then there was something said about nullification, as if it would amount to that-and I am not sure but it would in theory, if the article were permitted to stand just as it is now. I would not be in favor of putting anything into the Constitution which should prevent our taking the oath where the laws of the United States required us to do it. Certainly not. But I do not know why that gentleman, under the present circumstances, should be much alarmed even if we were nullificationists. Look at the Cabinet of the United States to-day, which has the support of the gentleman for Wilbraham, and I doubt not his confidence too. If I understand it, there are in that cabinet two of the most notorious nullifers in the United States, men who have held conventions a thousand times more disloyal than was the Hartford Convention. They have threatened

nullification and denounced the government of the United States over and over again, but they are now high in office, and enjoy the confidence of the gentleman's president, and I doubt not of the gentleman himself. But there is no danger in being a nullificationist if you happen to live south of Mason and Dixon's line. Such men can enjoy the confidence of the President of the United States and of all good and loyal citizens as much as any other men, but it is that nullification which sometimes whispers in the remote regions of the north which is so terrible.

ors.

But, Sir, I believe that to hold office under the United States, or to enjoy the confidence of the high officers of the United States, is very likely to make a man love the Constitution of the United States, and the Union, a little better than one who is merely a citizen and does not enjoy those honIt may be that the gentleman for Wilbraham thinks more of the Constitution of the United States than the rest of us, and Sir, perhaps he can afford to love the Union a little better than some of the rest of us. [Laughter.] I recollect that a brilliant orator of Massachusetts, when the question was before the legislature, at the last session but one, of the annexation of the city of Roxbury to the city of Boston, in speaking of the testimony which had been adduced against annexation, said that it nearly all came from the office holders of Roxbury; that the mayor loves his $800 a year, and the city clerk loves his $1,200 a year. Now, those gentlemen who love the Union so well have reason to love it a little better than the rest of us.

But, Sir, I think there is no danger upon that ground. No, Sir. The facts which were alluded to by the gentleman from Lowell, (Mr. Butler,) provide a complete answer in regard to the necessity for these oaths. I would certainly do nothing in the way of nullification in any manner, but I do not think we are called upon for any such reason to require that these oaths shall be administered to the officers of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. When we disregard or disobey the Constitution or laws of the United States, there is a power in the government of the United States which can take care of us. That government has never yet found much difficulty in securing the administration of its laws, and I do not imagine it will so long as it holds the spoils in its hands, which are sufficient in themselves to buy up soldiers enough to conquer all the opponents it is likely to have.

But, Sir, the gentleman for Wilbraham has told us of the States which have incorporated into their Constitutions, oaths to support the Constitution of the United States, and he pronounces an especial eulogium upon those of South Carolina and Louisiana. Why, those are the very States which have trampled that Constitution under foot more than any other States in this Union. Sir, there are States which any gentleman, with a proper and due respect for old Massachusetts, should never mention but to denounce. They are States which have not only trampled under foot the Constitution of the United States, but which have passed such laws, relative to citizens of Massachusetts, that if she were to pass an edict to imprison every slaveholder who should appear within her limits, it would only be meting out to them precisely the measure which they have meted out to us. But with what horror would such a proposition be received? And even South Carolina is held up to us as affording an example for us to

[May 31st.

follow! The very argument which the gentleman presents is of itself the strongest reason why we should not adopt his amendment. Now, Sir, while we should do nothing which will violate the Constitution and laws of the United States, we should not, in my opinion, make ourselves unnecessarily officious, at times when it is not needed, in volunteering such unremitted devotion, and in professing such obligations, to the Constitution of the United States. Why, Sir, we are necessarily bound to respect and obey the Constitution and laws of the United States, and if we violate them we can be punished. But when there is no danger of any such violation, and when the Constitution is being constantly disregarded by other States, in utter violation of our rights, I cannot think it is exhibiting a proper respect for ourselves to be so unnecessarily and so unceasingly constant in our praises and our professions of devotion to the Union.

Mr. FRENCH, of New Bedford. I would ask the Chair to inform me what is the question now pending?

The CHAIR. It is the amendment of the gentleman for Wilbraham, (Mr. Hallett),

Mr. FRENCH, of New Bedford. I am opposed to the amendment, and I sincerely desire that it may not prevail. I can discover no good reason in any of the arguments to which I have listened why the oath to support the Constitution of the United States should be inserted in a Constitution of this Commonwealth. There are gentlemen in this Commonwealth, and there may be some in this Convention, who, if elected to office, might be very unwilling to take an oath of that kind, unless the proviso was also incorporated, "as he understood it." Why should they be called upon to take that oath under the circumstances? Do they enjoy the rights and privileges of the Constitution of the United States? The Constitution of the United States provides that the "citizens of each State shall be entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States." Do citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts enjoy those rights? Before we incorporate into the Constitution an oath of that kind, and make it therefore obligatory upon every individual holding office to take that oath, would it not be well to have the question answered, do the citizens of each State enjoy the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States? There are gentlemen in this hall, probably, with letters, if not in their pockets, in their secretaries, inviting them south of Mason's and Dixon's line to take a coat of tar and feathers; to be hung up, perhaps, between the heavens and the earth, and for what? For violating any of the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, or any laws of the United States? No, Sir, not at all. But it was simply because they would not conquer their prejudices and assist in carrying out in good faith the odious, abominable, unconstitutional, and detestable so-called fugitive slave law. I am not for incorporating into the Constitution any such provision as gentlemen ask here. I have no hesitation in saying that I will support the Constitution of the United States, as I understand it, but I am totally unwilling, and am not prepared, to swear to support the Constitution of the United States as other gentlemen undertake to interpret it. Besides, what is the Constitution of the United States to-day? Is it binding upon us as individuals or as a State? We have been told by

Tuesday,]

that same authority which has been alluded to in such solemn tones of voice, that where an instrument, to which there are several parties, had been disregarded and disannulled by either of them, that the other parties were under no obligation to be governed by it. How stands that matter with regard to the Constitution of the United States? Is that the supreme law of this land, and do all the citizens of Massachusetts enjoy the rights and privileges intended to be secured by it? I look at those States in the south which swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and I find that they have burned at the stake citizens of free States. They have burnt them by a slow fire, and for what? Because they had violated any of the laws of the United States? Because they had discarded the Constitution? No, Sir; but simply because they believed in the doctrines of the New Testament, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the fathers of the Republic, and happened to be suspected of holding to that belief.

Are persons in Massachusetts who are entitled, under that clause of the Constitution to which I have referred, to travel the length and breadth of these United States if they demean themselves properly, and who have a perfect right to give their views with regard to the Constitution and laws of the United States, permitted to do so? No, they are not. No gentleman will undertake to say here that citizens of Massachusetts can avail themselves of that right and that they are permitted to enjoy it. We are all familiar with the case of one of our citizens, an accredited agent of this Commonwealth who went to South Carolina to prosecute a suit at law, in order to bring the general rights of citizens of Massachusetts, before the highest tribunal in the country. What did they do with him in South Carolina? They virtually kicked him out of that State, and said to him go home about your business, you shall not stop here to accomplish the purposes for which you were commissioned; and they said to us we will imprison your citizens as often and as long as we please, and you cannot help yourselves. Massachusetts pocketed the insult, and to this day has never stood up and declared her determination to take such measures as she ought to have taken under the circumstances. It may be pleasant for some gentlemen to talk about the preservation of this glorious Union, and all that. In what is this Union glorious? Is it in the fact to which I have alluded, that men dare not stop south of Mason's and Dixon's line for fear of being hung up by the neck? Very many of the constituents of the delegates to this Convention would be shocked at the introduction of the oath to support the Constitution of the United States into our own Constitution under these circumstances. Are they called upon to take it if they were elected to office? They are as free to-day, Mr. Chairman, as you and I are, as eligible to office too, and as much entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but they do not know how soon the hand of some one claiming to be a man may touch them upon the shoulder, scize and hurry them ten dollar commissioner who before a send them down South into intolerable bondage. I hope the motion of the gentleman for Wilbraham, (Mr. Hallett,) will not prevail, and that we will incorporate no such oaths as that recommended by him into our Constitution.

will

Mr. GOOCH, of Melrose. I do not rise for the purpose of discussing this question at length, but simply to make a single suggestion. It seems to me, in making and framing a Constitution, that the frame-work, the structure, should be independent and perfect of itself. If that be true, then I am opposed to the amendment now before the Committee for the same reason that I was opposed to the resolution the other day, requiring as a qualification for the office of governor of Massachusetts, that he should be a citizen of the United States, because it makes our Constitution depend in part upon some other government-upon a foreign government. This would be true as regards the question now before the Committee. If we require that a man before he shall perform the duties of governor of Massachusetts shall take an oath not only to support the Constitution of Massachusetts but shall also take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, we then require him to take an oath to support some foreign government-some government which has nothing to do, strictly speaking, with us as a State-some government which may alter or vary at pleasure—or some government which may or may not last as long as the Commonwealth of Massachusetts shall last. I am the last man in the world who desires that there should be any dissolution of this Union, or that its powers and functions should be impaired in any degree. It might be a conceivable thing that the governor of the Commonwealth would be required to take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States when there was no such Constitution in existence. In relation to this duty of officers to swear to support the Constitution of the United States, they are obliged to do it and they must do it by the very terms of the instrument, so long as the Constitution lasts and so long as Massachusetts remains a part of the United States. They must do it in common with every other State, and it seems to me that to incorporate into our Constitution the additional oath required, adds nothing to our obligations, imposes no new obligation upon us, but impairs the unity of our own Constitution. I think it is better to provide that our own officers shall swear to support the Constitution of Massachusetts, leaving the Constitution of the United States exactly where it leaves itself. It has power in itself, and there is power enough in the United States to extend it over us so long as the Constitution remains in force.

The question was then taken upon the amendment of Mr. Hallett, and it was decided in the negative.

Mr. WHITNEY, of Boylston. I suppose that there is no individual in the house who will be more affected by the passage of these resolutions than myself, and therefore, I feel it due to myself, to make a simple statement and offer an amendment, if it be in order. It so happens, that I am one of perhaps, five hundred men, who, for fifteen years have been disfranchised in consequence of the oaths of allegiance being required to be rendered to the State and the United States. It is not, because myself, and those with whom I act, are men who do not believe in governments, but, because these Constitutions have required us to do something which, as Christian men, we could not do. The Constitution of the United States has required, that under certain circumstances, we should take human life and destroy our fellowmen. This, we have believed and do believe to

[May 31st.

be incurring something that we cannot do ourselves under any circumstances, and therefore, we cannot appoint other men to do it for us. I do not feel that it would be proper for me to go into any argument to show that we are right, but I desire to make a single statement, and offer an amendment which would cover the ground of our difficulty. I may be permitted to say, however, that, in the discussion which has taken place here this morning, I have received new confirmation of what I have always believed to be true, that official oaths are not only unnecessary, but hurtful.

We find that men all over this Union, who are ready to swear oaths of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States, are the first to trample under their feet the very instrument which they are called upon to support. We need not go to France, to show that official oaths do not bind men. The amendment which I desire to offer, reads as follows:

"Resolved, That it is expedient to amend and alter the existing Constitution, by leaving out the official oaths and subscriptions."

The question was taken upon Mr. Whitney's amendment, and it was decided in the affirmative. Mr. HOPKINSON, of Boston. I do not rise to make a speech, for the Committee are evidently weary of the discussion on this subject, but I wish to amend the Report of the Committee, by striking out all the resolves except the 4th article or clause in the 3d resolve, and the 4th resolve.

The reasons which I have to give for offering the amendment are very brief. With all due respect to the Committee, the discussion in regard to the wording of the resolves, appears to me to be idle business. It is in my opinion amending for the sake of elegant composition, good grammar, or something of the kind, and I choose, rather than spend the time of this Convention in debating this subject, or that of the people in voting upon it, to leave the matter as it is. These verbal amendments appear to me to be immaterial matters, not deserving the attention given to them. I have no feeling in regard to the clause in the 3d resolve, concerning the oaths required to be taken by officers of the government.

But, believing that some people, who are not Quakers, prefer taking a different form of oath, on account of their feelings upon the subject, I would be willing to adopt the amendment which has relation to that matter. The 4th resolve has reference, I believe, to the value of the money, by which we shall fix the property qualification. If you abolish these qualifications it does not seem necessary to fix any standard of money. Therefore, these two amendments seem worth retaining. In all other matters, I think it is not worth while to lay our hand upon the present charter under which we live.

The question was taken on the adoption of the amendment of the gentleman from Boston, (Mr. Hopkinson,) and it was decided in the negative. Mr. WILSON, of Natick, then moved that the Committee rise and report the resolutions to the Convention.

The motion was agreed to, and the Chairman, Mr. Gray, of Boston, reported to

THE CONVENTION

That the Committee of the Whole, to whom was referred certain resolutions in relation to so much of the Constitution as is contained in the