On the 10th of May, the Maryland legislature, having received the report of their Commissioners above mentioned, passed the following resolution:—­

“Whereas, the war against the Confederate States is unconstitutional and repugnant to civilization, and will result in a bloody and shameful overthrow of our constitution, and while recognizing the obligations of Maryland to the Union, we sympathize with the South in the struggle for their rights; for the sake of humanity we are for peace and reconciliation, and solemnly protest against this war, and will take no part in it.

“Resolved, That Maryland implores the President, in the name of God, to cease this unholy war, at least until Congress assembles”—­ a period of above six months.  “That Maryland desires and consents to the recognition of the independence of the Confederate States.  The military occupation of Maryland is unconstitutional, and she protests against it, though the violent interference with the transit of the Federal troops is discountenanced.  That the vindication of her rights be left to time and reason, and that a convention under existing circumstances is inexpedient.”  From which it is plain that Maryland would have seceded as effectually as Georgia seceded, had she not been prevented by the interposition of Washington between her and the Confederate States—­the happy intervention, seeing that she has thus been saved from becoming the battle-ground of the contest.  But the legislature had to pay for its rashness.  On the 13th of September thirteen of its members were arrested, as were also two editors of newspapers presumed to be secessionists.  A member of Congress was also arrested at the same time, and a candidate for Governor Hicks’s place, who belonged to the secessionist party.  Previously, in the last days of June and beginning of July, the chief of the police at Baltimore and the members of the Board of Police had been arrested by General Banks, who then held Baltimore in his power.

I should be sorry to be construed as saying that republican institutions, or what may more properly be called democratic institutions, have been broken down in the States of America.  I am far from thinking that they have broken down.  Taking them and their work as a whole, I think that they have shown and still show vitality of the best order.  But the written Constitution of the United States and of the several States, as bearing upon each other, are not equal to the requirements made upon them.  That, I think, is the conclusion to which a spectator should come.  It is in that doctrine of finality that our friends have broken down—­a doctrine not expressed in their constitutions, and indeed expressly denied in the Constitution of the United States, which provides the mode in which amendments shall be made—­but appearing plainly enough in every word of self-gratulation which comes from them.  Political finality has ever proved a delusion—­as has the idea of finality in all human institutions.  I do not doubt but that the republican form of government will remain and make progress in North America, but such prolonged existence and progress must be based on an acknowledgment of the necessity for change, and must much depend on the facilities for change which shall be afforded.