Senator Mason on allegiance to the Federal
Government.
During the debate in the Senate, Monday, on the Wigfall Expulsion resolution.-- Mr. Mason said he was very certain, if a Senator was not entitled to a seat, it could be vacated whenever the facts, which warrant such a course, should be disclosed. If it be a punishable offence to allege a constitutional truth, then the resolution may be well founded. For one, he (Mr. Mason) recognized no allegiance to this Government.
He recognized and acknowledged no allegiance to this Government, none whatever; and here he took his position alongside the Senator from Texas; although Virginia is a constituent of this Government, and he one of her representatives, he owed allegiance to Virginia and no one else. Did the Senator from Connecticut resist the doctrine of constitutional law, and hold that the United States is still sovereign? If he did, God help him. [Laughter.]
So far as the Senator from Texas has committed an offence by saying he owed no allegiance to this Government, he stood by his side. He should be unfaithful to Virginia if he did not. The old feudal idea of allegiance was the relation between a subject and a sovereign; between the vassal and his lord. Allegiance here is that which is due from a citizen to a sovereign power. He knew of no sovereign except that of the State. He took it for granted that Connecticut is the Senator's sovereign, and that if he yields allegiance to this Government he is faithless.
The oath of allegiance in Virginia to be taken by all who are admitted to the political powers of the State, is faithfully and truly to support the Commonwealth. If the Senator from Texas is a foreigner he is not a citizen of the United States. But that is because of the fact, not because of the allegation, for the Constitution says that a foreigner shall not have a seat on this floor. The Senator from Texas said he believed he was a foreigner to this Government because Texas has separated herself from it, for the Senator did not then know the fact, nor did he know it now, unless he received the intelligence last night. The Senator believed that Texas has seceded, because he knew the popular sentiment of the State, and yet, because of this declaration, the Senator from Connecticut sought his expulsion.
The Senators and others, and the new President, declare that the ordinance declaring a separation is null, and that the State holds the same relation it did before the passage of the act: he (said Mr. Mason) denied it. Virginia denies it. Six of the States, as far as they knew, not only denied it, but have acted on it; and not only have confederated, but have formed a Government prepared to sustain itself if this Government shall attempt to attack it. If the Senator from Connecticut would say the act was a nullity, then he held language which he (Mr. Mason) thought, with great respect to him, is more disrespectful, tenfold, than the language for which the Senator s the Senator from Texas deserves to be expelled. Why? Because by their language five millions of people and seven sovereign States are in insurrection.
They declare the acts of secession nullities. Although these States seize what they call public property, yet, acknowledging all this, they take no means to recover it. In not acting upon the information, they are more reprehensible than the Senator from Texas.-- How could he owe allegiance to this Government? Then he must obey the orders of this Government in preference to those of his own State. He was sworn to support the Constitution, not the Government.
