arising from a proposed separation, and he hoped
that the wise and patriotic action of this Con-
vention might afford efficient aid in effecting
that separation, whenever it must come, peace-
ably and happily to both parties. For it must
come, as certainly as there was a God in Hea-
ven.
The black race could not remain here. They
were multiplying too fast. The two races could
not amalgamate, it was horrible to the soul and
spirit of the white man even to talk of amalgama-
tion. The black race, therefore, must either go
to their own original home or remain here as
slaves. Whilst they were here, be would go as
far as the gentleman from Cecil, (Mr. McLane,)
or any other gentleman, to treat them with all
the lenity, forbearance, and kindness which were
consistent with their relative position, and with
that one great object of separation which must
ultimately ensue.
His amendment did not contemplate impo-
sing any painful disabilities upon them—it did
not propose to place them beyond the pale of the
law. Not at all. On the contrary, it gave
them all the protection which they now enjoyed.
The only design was to leave them subject at all
times to legislative control, in any of those emer-
gencies which could not now be foreseen, but
which might arise in the progress of time. That
the Legislature of the State would act humanely
towards them, no man could doubt. And it
would be unwise to tie up their hands.
The gentleman from Cecil (Mr. McLane) had
expressed himself willing to vote for an amend-
ment which should provide only for the power'
of removal. Why not also provide for the gov-
ernment of these people whilst they were among
us ? The gentleman had said that the Legislature
had the power here contemplated without the
amendment and independent of the bill of Rights.
Be it so. Even if the Legislature had the power,
no harm could be done by the insertion of these
words. There were other gentlemen, however,
who had doubts as to the present existence of the
power. The only design of the amendment was
to leave in the hands of the Legislature of the
State, the power hereafter to enact such laws as
the public safety might require. This was its
whole scope and import,
The gentleman had asked whether, under this
clause, the Legislature would not have the pow-
er to disfranchise these people. It was so. That
was precisely what he aimed at; because the
emergency might arise when the public safe-
ty would demand that their rights and privi-
leges should be dealt with by the Legislature.
The amendment gave that power to the Legisla-
ture, confiding in the wisdom and forbearance of
that body—and trusting that they would never
forget the past history of the State, nor be false
to the dictates of duty and humanity. It was in-
deed much more likely that that body would for-
bear too long, than that they would act too rash-
ly. We could not be blind to the dangers which
surrounded us. We could not be blind to the
fiendish acts of the abolitionists, nor to the bitter
seeds of discord which they were sewing between
the master and the slave. It was the solemn

duty of the State to be prepared to meet the
danger, into whatever form it might present it-
self.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city, asked whether
it could be regarded as unchristian to protect
ourselves. Self-preservation was the first principle
in our nature. He looked on this as a mere
question of police. He had been induced to in-
troduce his amendment, because it had been said
here that there were many abolitionists in the city
of Baltimore. It was no such thing. The aboli-
tionists there are very few. His amendment on-
ly reserved to the Legislature, the power to res-
cue the people, if it should ever become neces-
sary, for the safety or tranquility of the State.
His colleague had said we should do nothing to
build up abolition in other States.
Mr. GWINN contended that we had no right to
do any thing to violate the rights of the colored
people among us, while they conduct them-
selves peaceably, or to strengthen the principle
of abolition in this State.
Mr. BRENT replied, that we could not now, by
any legislative provision, carry away these
colored people out of the State. The only way
was to leave them in the hands of the Legisla-
ture. The gentleman from Cecil, thought his,
(Mr.B.'s) original proposition cruel, because it
takes away the rights of this class of our popula-
tion, and leaves them at the mercy of a ruthless
Legislature. It was not so.
Mr. MCLANE stated that he only meant to say
that the amendment proposed to deprive them,
by giving the Legislature the power to do so, of
the rights to which they were entitled by another
article in the bill of rights.
Mr. BRENT replied, that it only gave the Leg-
islature the power to remove them, whenever it
shall become necessary for the safety of the State,
and every consideration required that the Legis-
lature should have this power for ourself-preser-
vation. We should at all times guard against
the torch of the incendiary being applied to the
magazine' and here was a class of people, which
at some time, might become a moral magazine,
fraught with our destruction.
The question was then taken on the amend-
ment of Mr. BRENT, as modified by the accepta-
tion of the amendment of Mr. MERRICK, and was
decided in the affirmative.
So the amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
And the Convention adjourned until to-mor-
row, at eleven o'clock.
THURSDAY, February 6th, 1851.
The Convention met at eleven o'clock.
Prayer was made by Rev. Mr. GRIFFITH.
The journal of yesterday was read and ap-
proved.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Mr. CHAMBERS of Kent, rose to make a per-
sonal explanation. Afriend had informed him
last evening, that his language reported in the