him. As property, it was, under the practice of
government, and by the sanction and example of
our greatest and purest men, recognized as equal,
in degree, to any other in the State. And since
it was subject to assaults from within and with-
out, and might, in some season of strong excite-
ment, be placed in sudden peril, it was not im-
proper to impose a check upon the legislative
power of the States. Slavery does not thus be-
come eternal, because those who will adopt the
new Constitution, may annul it, but it was just and
wise in seasons of high political excitement to
keep this element of discord out of our frequent
legislative contests—so that fanatacism may find
no foothold in the State, and that those most con-
cerned shall be left to pursue that course, which
interest, wisdom and humanity may dictate for
their guidance. Above all, ought we to refrain
from any measure which will create within our
own limits, a pretext even for those dangerous
opinions which are freely canvassed in the north-
ern States ?
Maryland is a BORDER=0State, and is from her
position, exposed to the chiefest ills which
would ensue upon a disruption of the Federal
Union. Her internal harmony creates a bond be-
tween the north and south, and the growth of
fanatical opinion within her territory, would do
more towards the dissolution of the Union, than
all the wickedness and perversity of external in-
fluence could accomplish.
Mr. MERRICK, (with a view, he said, to re-
move all doubt,) offered the following amend-
ment.
"Provided that nothing in this article shall be
so construed, as to prevent the Legislature from
passing all such laws for the Government, regu-
lation and disposition of the free colored popula-
tion in this State as they may see fit. "
Mr. BRENT of Baltimore city. That amend-
ment carries out my own view, and I accept it
as a modification of my own.
Mr. BOWIE suggested to the gentleman from
Charles, (Mr. Merrick,) to substitute the word
"regulation," for the word "disposition."
Mr. MERRICK thought, he said, that the word
"disposition" was better. The object was to re-
tain the whole power (in case the necessity for
its exercise should arise,) to remove these peo-
ple from the limits of our State, or to dispose of
them in such manner as the public interests and
safety might require.
Mr. MCMASTER desired to be informed, by the
gentleman from Charles, (Mr. Merrick,) whether
his amendment went so far as to allow the Leg-
islature to impose a tax on free negroes ?
Mr. MERRICK assented.
Mr. MCLANE asked the gentleman from Charles
to modify his amendment.
Mr. MERRICK declined to modify the amend-
ment.
Mr. MCLANE said, he was not disposed to em-
bark to much extent in the discussion. He ac-
knowledged that it was a subject of delicacy and
importance; at the same time, it was one on
which be had a fixed opinion. He believed that
we had the power to deal with these people, as

we may think proper. He objected to the amend-
ment as it was first proposed by the gentleman
from Baltimore, because it made the distinction
too broad, and opened the way to oppression. It
may he proper for the State to remove the col-
ored people before the danger is so imminent as
some have contemplated; but, until that time
shall arrive, they ought to be protected and suc-
cured. Any other course would, in his opinion,
be cruel to them, and unsafe to the white popula-
tion.
If the amendment does not place them out of
the pale of legal protection, he would be satis-
fied.
Mr. MERRICK said, his amendment was offered
with no idea of placing these people out of the
pale of the law, but merely to empower the leg-
islature to make such laws in relation to them as
the public interests might require, to leave them
in the hands of the legislature.
Mr. MCLANE said, that the gentleman from
Charles, concurred with him as to the impropri-
ety of subjecting the colored people to disabili-
ties. But did not this amendment put it in the
power of the legislature to subject them to these
disabilities? Might it not even proceed so far as
to take from them their property? He objected
to placing them in a situation in which they
would be liable to this. He, therefore, wished
that the amendment should be modified in this
respect. He thought these people ought to be re-
moved as soon as it can be done with propriety,
and that we are not bound to wait until the dan-
ger becomes more imminent. The gentleman
from Baltimore ashed, what we owe to the prin-
ciple of abolition? Owe to abolition! Could that
question be put to this Convention at this day?
What do we owe to abolition? We owe to it the
spirit of discord, the spirit of hatred, the danger
of disunion.
Mr. GWINN said, he alluded to it for the pur-
pose of saying, we should do nothing to strength-
en it in our own borders.
Mr. MCLANE agreed as to this. But this abo-
lition principle has operated on the colored peo-
ple, and he was ready to adopt any humane pro-
vision for their removal, although he would pro-
tect them while here.
Mr. MERRICK said, that to his mind, no ques-
tion could be more deeply interesting to the
State than this. We had amongst us anumer-
ous class of persons, who, by nature, were inimi-
cal to the great body of the people of the State.
We were in the same condition towards them, in
which other classes had been towards each other
in times gone by. We saw it written by the hand
of God, that the two races could not exist in
harmony in the same country. The time must
come when a separation, peaceably or forcibly
must take place. No two distinct races could,
or ever would, inhabit the same land, except in
the relative condition of master and slave—of the
ruler and the ruled. Sooner or later they must
separate, or extermination of the one or the other
must take place. In making an organic law
therefore, it became the duty of those who form-
ed it, to look to futurity. It was true, that there
was no present danger of any terrible calamity,