clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Proceedings and Debates of the 1867 Constitutional Convention
Volume 74, Volume 1, Debates 66   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space
Mr. Jones, of Somerset, presumed that the gentleman
from Prince George's (Mr. Marbury) desired to have the
opinion of the judiciary committee on the only restriction
or instructions imposed upon the Convention—that re-
specting compensation by the State for emancipated
slaves. It has been avowed that, despite the clause in the
Convention act forbidding any measure for such com-
pensation, the hidden purpose of the call was to disregard
that injunction, and so to violate the very terms of the act
under which the Convention was called. He had never
doubted that it was the purpose of gentlemen occupying
seats in the Convention, under the provisions of the bill,
faithfully to carry out the restrictions of the act. It was
the very general sentiment of the State that we should
not tax ourselves to pay for property which was taken for
what was considered a great public end, affecting the in-
terests of the whole Union—in fact taken, as all knew,
by the Federal government, directly or indirectly. The
sense of the State on the subject was expressed by the
Legislature at its last session. We ought not now, our-
selves, to assume a debt which fairly belongs to the
United States, and which would be paid by the United
States whenever a returning sense of justice should pre-
vail.
Mr. Ritchie said that whatever might be his practical
action on the subject of compensation, should it arise, he
had, as a lawyer, no hesitation in expressing the opinion
that the Convention represented the people of the State in
their sovereign capacity, and could not be bound by the
action of the Legislature.
Mr. Jones said that the question of the call of a Con-
vention having been submitted to the people with that
restriction, the law as passed by the popular suffrage
was the charter of the powers of the Convention.
Mr. Nicolai, of Baltimore county, offered a substitute
looking to the incorporation into the constitution of a
provision forbidding the passage of any law providing
for compensation for emancipated slaves, but subsequent-
ly withdrew it.
Mr. Marbury said the idea suggested by the gentle-
man had never entered his head until suggested by other
gentlemen.
68


 
clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Proceedings and Debates of the 1867 Constitutional Convention
Volume 74, Volume 1, Debates 66   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  October 06, 2023
Maryland State Archives