|
|
|
After debate, the Convention refused to entertain the
substitute.
Mr. Peters proposed to amend article 24, so as to read:
"Slavery in this State having been destroyed under the
policy and authority of the United States, compensation
in consideration thereof is due from the United States. "
The Convention refused to entertain this amendment
by a vote of 63 to 28.
Mr. Walsh called attention to an apparent inconsistency
in the 33d article and the report of the judiciary commit-
tee, and moved to open the article to amendment, which
was agreed to.
Mr. Carter then offered an amendment that the judges
shall not be removed except as provided for in this con-
stitution, which was agreed to.
The third reading of the article having been concluded,
Mr. Vansant moved that it do now pass.
Mr. Jones would make an appeal to the members of the
Convention who were not satisfied with certain of the sec-
tions, to yield their own views to the decision of the ma-
jority of the Convention. He hoped they would present a
united front, and that their labors should go before the
people with the sanction of unanimity.
Mr. Mitchell would like very much to oblige his friend
from Somerset, but there were articles in this Declara-
tion which he could not conscientiously approve of, and
which the people did not like, and he would be, therefore,
compelled to vote against it.
Mr. Brewer, of Baltimore city, would be obliged to
record his vote against the bill for the same reasons as
those of the gentleman from Charles county, (Mr.
Mitchell. )
Mr. Nelson said that, regarding declarations enunciated
in this Bill of Rights as a stab against the principles of
States rights, and as an abrogation of our long settled
policy relative to the negro race, he could not conscien-
tiously vote for it.
Mr. Stoddert would vote for the bill if he could enter
his protest against the 24th article, but as he saw no
mode of doing that, he was compelled to vote against it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
382
|
|
|
 |
