Mr. BRENT said, the Convention was making a
bill of rights for the citizens of Maryland, and a
contingency might arise, in which it might be
necessary to banish a certain portion of our
population. This amendment would meet the
case.
Mr. PRESSTMAN hoped the amendment would
not be adopted. There may be white persons
resident in Maryland, who are not entitled to
citizenship. His colleague had stated his object
to be to leave it in the power of the Legislature,
to banish colored persons, if ever a state of things
should arise which would render it expedient to
do so. But there may be white freemen, as well
as colored, and they ought not to be placed in
a position in which their right to remain in the
State, should be made to depend on the will of
the Legislature. He hoped the amendment would
not pass.
Mr. BRENT said he must adhere to his amend-
ment. His colleague seemed to think that the
rights of white freemen, who are not citizens,
who are not freemen, might be affected by the
amendment. They are protected by the com-
mon law. This House is engaged in making a
bill if rights, not for sojourners, but for citizens
of the State. The new census exhibits the
alarming fact, that while the number of slaves
has diminished, that of the free colored persons
has increased. He did not ask for any affirma-
tive action, but a time may come, when it will
be necessary for our tranquility and security, to
banish these persons; while the bill of rights, as
it stands, prohibits the Legislature from exiling
these colored persons who are free.
Mr, GWINN said the freedom and security of
all the people of the State, were secured by the
bill of rights. Should a time arrive when it will
be thought expedient to banish this class of per-
sons, the Legislature has the power to do it.
Mr. BRENT thought the Legislature had not
the power.
Mr. GWINN suggested that the Legislature
might reach this class of persons. He had no
fear that the increase of the colored population
would be such as to give reasonable ground for
alarm, but if it should, the Legislature would
have the power to check it without this amend-
ment.
Mr. JENIFER agreed that a time might possibly
arrive when the State would have to send away
this class of our population, but as the power is
already vested in the Legislature to do this, he
would not be willing to make a more stringent
provision.
Mr. BRENT contended that the Legislature
could not exile any citizen, unless judgment had
previously been obtained against him. The bill
of rights made no distinction between free color-
ed people and white citizens unless it is amended.
He disdained any intention to inflict cruelty on
these harmless people. But he believed a time
would come, when there will be a death struggle
between the castes. The effect of the abolition
movement on our slave population, may be their
banishment. He would not tie up the hands of
the Legislature so as to prevent them from acting
in cage of necessity. No new power is desired

for the Legislature, so long as these persons
peaceably remain in the enjoyment of the rights
which the laws guarantee to them. But he
would give the Legislature power, in case of ne-
cessity, to banish them. He regarded this popu-
lation as an incubus on the prosperity of the
State.
Mr. GWINN referred to cases in which the
power had been exercised.
Mr. BRENT modified his amendment so as to
read as follows:
" Nothing in this article of the bill of rights to
apply to the free colored population of this State."
Mr. BLAKISTONE made some remarks against
the amendment, the sketch of which is reserved
for publication in a future number.
Mr. DORSEY said, he acquiesced in the expo-
sition given to this article by the gentleman from
Baltimore. He did not accord with the view of
the other gentleman from Baltimore, as to mean-
ing of the words "the law of the land." If law
of the land meant any act of assembly that
might be passed by the legislature, this article of
the bill of rights, would give to us none of the
protection for which it was designed.
Mr. GWINN asked whether, if the colored peo-
ple became turbulent, the legislature had not the
power to banish them?
Mr. DORSEY replied, that if the gentleman
from Baltimore merely asked his private opin-
ion, he should say that the legislature had no
such power under the Constitution. If the legis-
lature has a right to pass such law as to negroes
it has an equal power to pass a similar law as
to the white residents. It had the same right in
the one case as in the other. If it be expedient
to give the power to the legislature, to carry out
in the case supposed by the gentleman from
Baltimore city, (Mr. Brent,) then the amend-
ment now proposed by him is a proper one. He
had no fear that the legislature would not make
proper laws, and he would willingly leave the
power with that body to make such laws as
might be called for, but he would not give the
power to banish freemen. He believed the leg-
islature had the power to regulate these people,
but it had never, to any extent, been exercised.
He did not see that this amendment would in any
way authorize lawless bands of men, to violate the
rights of our colored population, as had been sta-
ted, would be the consequence of this amendment.
They are entitled to protection, and they will be
protected. It gives no power to kidnappers which
they do not already possess, and if they attempt
to violate the rights of colored people, they are
liable to punishment now, just as they will be if
the amendment is adopted.
Mr. GWINN referred to the alien and sedition
laws, and to the discussion which formerly took
place here, and asked if aliens could be banished
by the United States.
Mr. DORSEY replied, by asking, if the Consti-
tution of the United States gave Congress the
power to banish aliens? If not, there was no
analogy between the cases.
Mr. GWINN said:
That he could not support the proposed amend-
ment. As the article now stands, no freeman