has travailed much and his new born delivered,
At some other time, he, [Mr. B.,] might take
part in the discussion.
Mr. MERRICK rose, at a very late hour, and
said a very few words on the necessity which ex-
isted for a vigilant supervision of the finances of
the State, which would go to ruin, if that vigi-
lance was relaxed. The people ought, therefore,
to be annually convened by their legislature, for
that purpose.
A committee might be partial, and its re-
port would not give the people that security
which would be obtained by the presence of the
legislature. Instead of extending the biennial
sessions to ninety or one hundred and twenty days
it would be better to have annual sessions of half
that length.
The amendment of the gentleman from Queen
Anne's, (Mr. Spencer,) would enable the legisla-
ture to return to biennial sessions, at any time
when the public interests may require more
prompt legislation.
Mr. THOMAS made a brief reply, in which he
argued against giving the power to the legisla-
ture, to return to biennial sessions on one hand,
while we were restricting them on the other. It
was said the legislature might adjourn to meet
the next year, to take up the unfinished business.
In that case there would be few votes against
it.
His colleague, (Mr. Biser,) had travelled his
county oftener than he, [Mr. T.,] would, to be
President of the United States; but it was a preg-
nant fact, that he was never in a single instance,
called to account for his vote in favor of biennial
sessions.
And then the Convention adjourned until to-
morrow, at eleven o'clock.
Sketch of the Remarks of Mr. BLAKISTONE, on
Wednesday, Feb. 5, on the motion of Mr. BRENT,
of Baltimore, to amend the twenty-first article of
the Bill of Rights, in relation to the "free colored
population."'
Mr. BLAKISTONE said it was wondrous strange
that such a proposition should receive any coun-
tenance in a Convention of the State of Mary-
land. These people are among us, and was it
possible that any one here could desire to put
them out of the pale of our protection. In this
nineteenth century was such a doctrine to be
set forth in such an assembly.
Mr. B. read the article as it now stands, and
then came the amendment of the gentleman from
Baltimore. If ever there was a proposition of
doubtful propriety it was that now offered. We
have had much talking here about human rights,
and the rights of the people. He yielded to no
man in his advocacy of the lights of the people,
and perhaps he went farther than any member of
the Convention for extending them. The free
colored population have no political rights here,
and never can have any. These people have
been placed by the Providence of God among
us, and he was for giving them protection. In-
sert this amendment and they will be thrown at
the mercy of the wicked, even of the kidnapper,

who will come and steal them in the midst of
us; and here you offer him a license to do 80, be-
cause, when you say certain rights of certain per-
sons shall be protected, you leave all other per-
sons and all other rights, not specifically enumer-
ated, unprotected, and open to violation. Incusio
unius est exclusio alterius. The amendment
goes even beyond this, and specified their exclu-
sion from the protection the original article was
designed to afford. It was the duty of every
Marylander to repudiate the doctrine of this
amendment. The moment a human being, na-
tive, or foreigner, white or black, bond or free,
sets his foot upon our soil, he is under the pro-
tection of the laws of the State, and when that
time shall come when you take away that pro-
tection, which he trusted never would, vio-
lence and outrage would stalk with unbridled
phrensy throughout the land. Looking at it in
a political aspect he referred to the efforts which
had recently been made to effect a dissolution of
the Union. He had no sympathies with disunion-
ists in any quarter, north or south, east or west.
He was for the Union as it is, one and indivisable.

He asked the gentleman from Baltimore, if he
was willing to pander to this morbid excitement,
to this turbulent and unholy spirit? Was he wil-
ling to add fuel to the flame of discord, that pre-
vails in our land? Was he willing to give even
the semblance of an argument to the northern
abolitionists—the professed friends, but the worst
enemies of the colored race, against one of the
slave holding States of this Union. He could
not give his consent to insert a provision saying,
that the free colored population should not be
protected in their persons and property. He be-
lieved the slave holding States of this Union, the
best friends of the colored race. In case of ne-
cessity, he would be willing to colonize them
among their own race in Liberia. There they
would have rights which will not be given to
them here.
But, this Convention ought to be careful not
to fan the flame which a discontented portion of
the Union has endeavored to kindle. Let the
colored people know that they will find protec-
tion here. Let them understand that they are
better protected, and better cared for in Mary-
land than they are in any other State of the
Union. Many of them know this already, although
there may be some too stupid to understand their
own best interests. They, the more stand in
need of our protection. There may be some bad
among them, as well as some good, but whether
they were all good or all bad, they are equally
entitled to protection while they remain here. If
they disturb the peace of the State, they should
be removed, and the legislature has the power to
remove them, as the penalty for their miscon-
duct.
But if we cannot get rid of them, while they
are here, let the broad mantle of protection be
extended over them. He could not see what
good could result from this amendment, its only
tendency, in his opinion, was to feed the prevail-
ing excitement. If it was ever thought proper
to get rid of this class, (these people of color,) in