tem.

tion.

Yet it has been distinctly decided by one of the ablest judges, whose opinion was referred to by the gentleman from Calvert (Mr. Briscoe) in the last Legislature as sanctioning the absolute right of property, as a general thing, by Chief Justice Robertson, of the Court of Appeals in Kentucky, that marriage is absolutely within the control of the legislative authority, with the consent of both parties, or without the consent, or against the consent of both parties; and because it is a social institution.

In a Government regulated by a Constitution, I say that the right to regulate the condition of persons under that Constitution, how far one man may hold dominion over another man, is an inherent and absolute right, which the sovereignty exercises without appeal. I do not deny the right to make a slave property, so far as man can be property; but the very fact that he is a man gives the Legislature control over him. The Legislature may try him and hang him. The Legislature may exercise any power over him as a person, no matter how injuriously it affects the right of property. Any man can see that if a negro slave is executed for a crime, it is not a case of taking private property for public use, while the Legislature in its discretion can provide compensation, it is not necessary, because it became property by their grant and could not have become property otherwise. It is just because a negro is a man, because he is a person, that there cannot be property in him beyond the power of that sovereign existence which controls The right of the State to the obedience of the negro is above that of the master. If the master tells him one thing and the State another, which must he obey? Is not the negro bound as a man to obey the law of the State, no matter how much property his master may have in him? The power of the State rises above the power of the master. The position as a man is above the position as a slave.

such results; when we see that it has worked) so badly, why should we be compelled to perpetuate it? Yet we are told that we shall not take another system; that although this system is crushed into fragments, the people of this State have no right to protect themselves by the establishment of any other sysGentlemen have spoke of novel doctrines; but I must confess that this is the most novel doctrine that I have heard, that we cannot emancipate. It has been the theory in Maryland for some years that the master could not emancipate, that the State controlled the power of emancipation; that the State could deny to the master the power to emancipate. How do you reconcile that with the denial to the State of the power to emancipate? What means the provision of the Constitution of 1776, that the Legislature shall not abolish slavery except by unanimous consent, if the State cannot abolish it at all? What means the provision in the Constitution that the Legislature of Maryland shall not abolish slavery, if it were not in their power without such a provision in the Constitution to abolish it? What means the prohibition upon the interference by the Legislature with the relation of master and slave, if they had not the power to interfere? How does slavery exist? Was not slavery ratified by law in 1715 by State authority? And if that State authority at that time had decided the other way, slavery would not now exist. Gentlemen talk about impairing the obligation of contracts. I assert that the Constitution of the United States never meant to take away from any State the power to control its own social institutions. Slavery is a social institution. It is in its very nature a grant from the State, by which one class of the people of the State, whether citizens or merely inhabitants or subjects, are transferred to the domination of another class of the population. I assume that the inherent right of every community to govern its own people, to regulate the status of its own population, its control over the people they made masters So far as regards the question of compenand the people they made slaves, is necessarily sation, I have but a few words to say. I say above every right of property created by the that compensation, as a right, does not exist. State or allowed by the State between these It does not exist for the reasons which I have two classes. Its right to legislate about it just urged. There may be certain instances cannot be denied. What was decided by the which justify it, and certain instances which Court of Appeals in relation to the right of do not justify it; cases when it is allowable, the city of Baltimore to appoint exclusively and cases when it is wrong. All I can say its own police officers, was that the police upon this subject is, that this is one of the power of the State could not be abandoned. cases when it is wrong. I say that the cirHow is it sovereign, if it has no power to cumstances of these times are such that comregulate the status of its own people? Ipensation is not due. I say that the cirknow the Courts of the United States have gone very far upon this doctrine. Judge Story particularly has gone to an extent that has not been sustained either by the Supreme Court or by the other tribunals of the country. Judge Story has carried the principle so far as to take the ground, that the legislative authority could not dissolve the marriage rela

om as a man.

cumstances of the future are such that compensation will come in another form; and you cannot strike the balance. This institution has struck at the vitals of the United States, and aimed its dagger at its heart; and that is the cause of the death of that institution. If it produces inconvenience to individuals, it is beyond the control of the Legislature, be

cause the Legislature cannot compensate un- he held over the burning altar the hand with der such circumstances. which he had signed his recantation of Pro

[The hour for taking the vote having ar-testantism, and burned it before the rest of rived, the hammer fell.]

Mr. DANIEL moved to reconsider the order that the debate should be closed at 2 o'clock. Mr. STIRLING. If the Convention will allow me to proceed for ten minutes by unanimous consent, I should prefer it to reconsidering the order.

Mr. DANIEL withdrew his motion.
There being no objection,

his body, we intend to hold over the consuming flame this institution, saying: "By this we have offended; let this die first."

I believe that such an act would not only appal the breasts of traitors in the South, but afford the only hope of reorganizing the Union party of the South. But not only is the loyalty of the South principally confined to the region where slavery does not exist, but there has not been a man who has been converted from rebellion to loyalty, but has come back by the road of the abolition of There is not a man who was in

by which the Southern people can ever travel back into sympathy with this Government, except by the change of those circumstances which brought about the rebellion.

Mr. STIRLING proceeded: I believe that the inauguration of this policy will go very far to establish the result which I before announced as the first proposition in my argu-slavery. ment. Just so far as the Southern people the rebel army, and who has joined the Union become satisfied that the South is not a unit, army, who has not come back through the just so far they will grow weak in their re-road of abolition. There is not a single road sistance. I believe conscientiously that if the people of the South had been convinced that the border States would not have followed them into this war, they would not have made it. The idea of a confederacy based upon the States bordering upon the Gulf of Mexico is an impossibility. They believed that all the slaveholding States would go with them. If the border States had stood firm, with their arms in their hands, and told these people they would not join them, but would aid in protecting the Union, it would have had the effect to stay the rebellion; for the South could not be foolish enough to conceive the idea of a confederacy of the cotton States. Emancipation in Missouri and Tennessee is carrying the lines of the Government down into the very heart of the rebellion. It brings about a condition in which the continuance of the rebellion becomes an impossibility.

This is therefore no obsequious sacrifice to despots in Washington. It is the free choice of the people of this State. It is because they believe with Mr. Lincoln that this is the cause of the rebellion. It is because this flag is their flag, this Government their Government, that they do this act to save the Government from danger, and to transmit it unimpaired to their posterity.

Mr. MARBURY rose to a personal explanation in reply to Mr. Berry, of Baltimore county, in relation to the votes given by himself and his colleagues upon the resolution of thanks to the Maryland soldiers, but before concluding, was called to order by

The PRESIDENT, who did not consider the explanation such as to be a privileged question. Mr. MARBURY thereupon reserved the privilege of replying until some future opportunity.

Mr. CLARKE desired to offer an amendment to the amendment.

The PRESIDENT ruled it out of order, unless by general consent, or the reconsideration of the order requiring the vote to be taken at this time.

Look at the influence of voluntary emancipation upon the question of secession. Do not gentlemen know that in the mountainous region of the country, from Pennsylvania to Georgia, along the whole backbone of the Alleganies, you have a loyal population? Why is this? You find a loyal population along that territory, because they are not slaveholding. And that population alone, along the mountain region, extending down The question was stated upon the amendinto Tennessee, has been that by which this ment submitted by Mr. BROWN. Government has saved itself. I conceive that if the people of the South had been united; if every man in Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Maryland, had been identif ed in feeling, in sympathy, with South Carolina, they could not have been conquered. I believe they can be conquered simply because I believe those States, by these cotemporaneous acts, are asserting a purpose which the Southern States cannot gainsay, and from which they cannot be drawn. It is simply saying to these people,

Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's, moved a reconsideration of the order by which the Convention determined to take the vote at two o'clock.

The motion was seconded by Messrs. MARBURY and HARWOOD.

The motion to reconsider was rejected. The question recurred upon Mr. BROWN'S amendment, which was read as follows:

"Add to the 23d Article the following: and the Legislature shall make provision from the Treasury of the State for the comfortable support and maintenance of the helpless and paupers hereby emancipated.'

Mr. BROWN demanded the yeas and nays, and they were ordered.

The question being taken, the result was yeas 28, nays 53-as follows:

three years, I have been a citizen of Maryland more than thirty, and up to the firing on Fort Sumter, was as strong a pro-slavery man as I am now anti-slavery.

Mr. DAVIS, of Charles, called the gentleman to order.

Yeas-Messrs. Berry, of Baltimore county, Berry, of Prince George's, Billingsley, Blackiston, Briscoe, Brown, Chambers, Clarke, Crawford, Dail, Dennis, Duvall, Edelen, Gale, Harwood, Hollyday, Horsey, Johnson, Lans- The PRESIDENT overruled the point of order. dale, Lee, Marbury, Mitchell, Miller, Parran, Mr. ABBOTT proceeded: It was not until I Peter, Smith, of Dorchester, Turner-28. found those having that great interest in their Nays-Messrs. Goldsborough, President; charge and keeping, had abandoned all law Abbott, Annan, Audoun, Baker, Barron, and Constitution, and staked everything upon Carter, Cunningham, Cushing, Daniel, Da- the sword, that I made war upon my former vis, of Charles, Davis, of Washington, Earle, friends. I am here to-day by my vote to celeEcker, Farrow, Galloway, Greene, Hatch, brate a victory by the sword. The power of Hebb, Hoffman, Hopkins, Hopper, Jones, of this government is greater than they, and Cecil, Keefer, Kennard, King, Larsh, Mace, their institution for which they drew the Markey, McComas, Mullikin, Murray, Neg-sword has perished by the sword. My colley, Nyman, Parker Purnell, Ridgely, Robinette, Russell, Sands, Schley, Schlosser, Scott, Smith, of Carroll, Sneary, Stirling, Stockbridge, Sykes, Thomas, Thruston, Valliant, Wickard, Wooden-53.

When their names were called,

Mr. RIDGELY said: If this proposition were offered as an independent proposition, in its appropriate place in the report of the Committee on the Legislative Department, I would vote for it. That, offered as an amendment in this connection, I consider it calculated to embarrass the article; and I therefore vote "no."

Mr. VLLIANT said: The explanation offered by the gentleman from Baltimore county (Mr. Ridgely) will explain my vote. I vote "no." So the amendment was rejected. The question recurred upon the adoption of the 23d Article of the Declaration of Rights, as reported by the committee.

Mr. MULLIKIN demanded the yeas and nays, and they were ordered.

The question being taken, the result wasyeas 53, nays 27-as follows:

league (Mr. Stockbridge) and my friend from Howard (Mr. Sands) have expressed my views upon this subject as it now stands. I vote 'aye."

Mr. AUDOUN said: I believe that the men who are now in front of Richmond shedding their blood for this country, demand the aid of every Union man in this State, and particularly of the men of this Convention. To aid them, so far as I can, I cheerfully vote "aye."

Mr. BARRON said. I rise for the purpose of saying that I was left by cars and steamboat, and have travelled all the way here in a carriage to vote "aye."

Mr. ECKER said: As it is customary to make explanations, I will explain my vote. I am not like the gentleman who signed the Declaration of Independence, Stephen Hopkins, whose hand trembled a little as he signed it-I don't know whether he was afraid of the rope or not. I consider this the proudest vote of my life with one exception; and that was in 1832, when I voted for Henry Clay. I vote "aye."

Mr. HARWOOD said: As the sword has not yet settled this question, I vote "no."

Mr. KENNARD said: As a Marylander to the manor born, I regard it as one of the proudest acts of my life to bear my part in giving Maryland freedom, by voting "aye."

Mr. MARBURY said: I consider this robbery, and therefore vote "no."

Yeas-Messrs. Goldsborough, President;
Abbott, Annan, Audoun, Baker, Barron,
Berry, of Baltimore county, Carter, Cunning-
ham, Cushing, Daniel, Davis, of Washing-
ton, Earle, Ecker, Farrow, Galloway, Greene,
Hatch, Hebb, Hoffman, Hopkins, Hopper,
Jones, of Cecil, Keefer, Kennard, King, Larsh,
Mace, Markey, McComas, Mullikin, Murray,
Negley, Nyman, Parker, Purnell, Ridgely,
Robinette, Russell, Sands, Schley, Schlosser,
Scott, Smith, of Carroll, Sneary, Stirling,
Stockbridge, Sykes, Thomas, Thruston, Val-vote "no."
liant, Wickard, Wooden-53.

Nays-Messrs. Berry, of P. George's, Billingsley, Blackiston, Briscoe, Brown, Chambers, Clarke, Crawford, Dail, Davis, of Charles, Dennis, Duvall, Edelen, Gale, Harwood, Hollyday, Horsey, Johnson, Lansdale, Lee, Marbury, Mitchell, Miller, Parran, Peter, Smith, of Dorchester, Turner-—27.

As their names were called,

Mr. ABBOTT said: I desire to say a word in explanation of my vote. Although born and

Mr. PETER said: As I believe that the same God who established the relation of husband and wife, and parent and child, also established the relation of master and servant, I

Mr. SCHLEY said: As an act of patriotism, justice, and humanity, alike redounding to the honor of the State of Maryland and the welfare of the people, I am proud to vote "aye." So the 23d Article was ordered to a third reading.]

The further consideration of the Declaration of Rights was informally postponed.

ADJOURNMENT TO JULY 6.

Mr. STIRLING moved to adjourn to Monday

living in Massachusetts until the age of twenty-morning, at 11 o'clock.

iu

Mr. MILLER. I have a personal explanation also to make. The gentleman from Baltimore county (Mr. Berry) has made some allusion to the vote that was taken on the 12th of May, 1864, on the resolution offered by the gentleman from Baltimore.

I voted, sir, upon that resolution, on that occasion, contrary to the majority of the gentlemen with whom I have uniformly acted since I have been here, and for this reason. I did not regard voting for the resolution as an indorsement of the war or the policy upon which the war is waged. I can vote at any time. thanks to the gallantry of Maryland men, displayed in the field of battle and did so in this case without approving of the policy of the war in which they are engaged. The concluding part of the resolution, expressing sympathy with the families of those who have fallen, I would vote for under all circumstances.

would not have stood by and seen that man sent back to slavery after having travelled hundreds of miles to gain it. Whatever may be the inconsistency of that, I have not been so inconsistent as to both admit that slavery was wrong and that I was a slaveholder; or that the law making slavery was wrong Resolved, That this Convention tenders its inception, but that I would assist in up- the thanks of the State to the soldiers of Waholding it on the borders of a free State andry land in the army of General Grant, for the making that a hunting ground for slaves. gallant manner in which they have behaved The gentleman from Prince George's (Mr. | during the recent battles, and that this ConClarke) with an assumption not warranted vention expresses its deep sympathy with the either by his years or by his wisdom, has pre-families of the slain, and for the wounded in sumed to speak as if my youth was such that their sufferings." I had barely left the parent nest. I would call the attention of this Convention that his experience covers a period of not quite sixty days. That full-blown statesman has come here after an incubation of about sixty days; and one would suppose that he had been consulted in framing the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution of the United States, and had been in public life from that time to this. I thought perhaps the gentleman from Prince George's might have sate at the feet of my colleague (Mr. Stockbridge) | during the last session of the General Assembly of this State, and so have learned from him, but my colleague was unfortunately born upon the hated soil that produced such iniquitous anti-slavery men as Jay, Everett, Alexander Hamilton and Franklin, and the chivalrous member from Prince George's (Mr. | Clarke) could not stoop to study in that school. Moreover, the lengthy Latin quotation paraded in the gentleman's speech proved during its utterance that such pronunciation and scanning could not have been learned in any New England school. I thought perhaps the gentleman might have supposed was not capable of expressing my views upon the floor of this House, because I had not been like him engaged in the trial of those celebrated cases which have made his name already so famous, that it will be doubtless quoted as authority by all generations yet to

come..

In conclusion, I have but to say that I am here to represent a constituency that thought me old enough and wise enough to come here. If gentlemen can bring any arguments to disprove anything I advance, I shall be delighted to hear it. If they can utterly overthrow any propositions I may advance, they will be heard by none more gladly than by myself. It shows the inherent weakness of the cause they attempt to defend, when not touching the arguments, not denying the facts, they attempt merely to slur it over by an allusion to my youth.

My views are just these in regard to the war; that if prosecuted at all it should be waged as the Crittenden resolution declares for no purpose of conquest or subjugation, or to overthrow or interfere with the rights of any man under the Constitution, but to defend and maintain the supremany of the Constitution and to preserve the Union with all the dignity, and equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war should cease. I think if the war is now prosecuted for any other purpose, it has changed its character. By voting for that resolution I did not approve of the war much less indorse the policy upon which it is now conducted.

Mr. CLARKE. One word in reply to the personal matter of the gentleman from Baltimore city (Mr. Cushing.) The gentleman misunderstood me; for I did not intend to comment either upon his years or his legislative experience, when I pronounced him a "fledgeling" in his constitutional law. 1 leave the judgment of posterity to pass upon that, upon my views as spread upon the Journal of Debates.

On motion of Mr. MILLER,

The Convention adjourned to meet under the order previously adopted, on July 6th, at 12 o'clock M.