report sumbmitted by Mr. DORSEY, as chairman
of the committee on Declaration of Rights;
On motion of Mr. BOWIE,
The Convention reconsidered their vote on the
3rd article in the report;
Mr. BOWIE, then moved to amend the fourth
article, by striking out in the third and fourth
lines, these words: "at the time of their first emigration,"
and inserting in lieu thereof "fourth
of July, 1716."
Mr. RANDALL was opposed to the amendment.
Chancellor Kilty had by authority of this State,
published forty years ago, an elaborate and ac-
curate report of about 300 pages on the English
statutes in force in this State, under our present
Constitution and laws; such as had been found
applicable to our circumstances, and had been
used and practised by our courts. This re-
port, the Court of Appeals had declared to be
prima facie evidence of what statutes were now
in force in this State, in 5 H. P.J. 402. Under
this state of things, rights of the most important
and intereating character had been established by
our courts, under the language of the pre-
gent Constitution. He was apprehensive that if
they changed the phraseology as proposed by the
gentleman from Prince George's county, (Mr.
Bowie,) this might exclude some of the English
statutes now in force. Those statutes which in-
tervene between the time of our first settlement
in Maryland, and the fourth of July, 1776, and
had been found applicable, and incorporated into
our laws, and ever since so remained, but which
had been repealed if there be any such by the
British Parliament before fourth of July, 1776,—
and hence the English statute may not exist as
an English statue, on the fourth of July, 1776
yet it may on that day be the law of this State
from having been previously incorporated, and
the repeal of it by Parliament, not applicable to
this country. There is danger in changing so
fundamental an article of the Constitution merely
to accomplish an imaginary consistency. But
be did not see any propriety in selecting the
fourth of July, 1776, as the day on which all
English statutes then existing, should become the
law of this State. That is the birth-day of our
political existence as a nation of States, but it is
not an epoch connected with the conditions of
the laws of this State, or of the English statute
in force within its limits. The truth is, no English
statute enacted after the year 1771, is now
in force in this State. The last statute declared
by the authority before referred to, to be in
force here, is the 11th of George 3d, chap. 30
which was passed that year. You do, therefore
by this change in fact extend the time five years
within which English statutes may be introduce
as the law of this State, an effect the very re-
verse of which, was the object of this amendment.
You may thus open new and difficult discussions
on points now too clearly settled, to admit
of doubt.
Mr. BOWIE stated that his object in bringing
down these statutes to July 4th, 1716, was that
all the statutes in existence from the date of the
first emigration to the Declaration of Indepen- |
dence, might be considered in force, as far as
they were held to be applicable to our local and
other circumstances.
Mr. TUCK preferred, so far as his own opinion
was concerned, that the clause should stand
as adopted in the old Declaration of Rights.
We thought that the argument on the amendment
had been answered by the gentleman from Anne
Arundel, (Mr. Randall,) and as the Court of Ap-
peals had given a construction to many of those
statutes, he thought it better to retain the old article.
If the effect will be the same, why change
the words ?
Looking to the decisions that had been made
on the subject, there was no argument of force
to be drawn from the fact that we were now liv-
ing in 1851, while our forefathers lived in 1776.
The question was then taken on the amend-
ment of Mr. BOWIE, and it was agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Bowie,
The said section was further amended by stri-
king out in fifth and sixth lines, these words : and
of such others as have been since made in Eng-
land or Great Britain."
On motion of Mr. DASHIELL, it was
Ordered, That it be entered on the journal,
that Mr. JAMES U. DENNIS, has been called home
by the illness of a member of his family.
Mr. MAGRAW moved, that further proceedings
under the call of the Convention, on the order
submitted by Mr. HOWARD, be dispensed with.
The Convention then resumed the considera-
tion of paid order.
The question being on the motion of Mr.
HEARN, to lay the order and amendment on the
table,—
The yeas and nays previously ordered were
taken, and appeared as follows :
Affirmative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't, Morgan,
Blakistone, Dent, Hopewell, Lee, Chambers of
Kent, Dorsey, Wells, Randall, Sellman, Dalrym-
ple, Bond, Sollers, John Dennis, Williams, Hicks,
Hodson, Goldsborough, Eccleston, Bowie, Sprigg
McCubbin, Dirickson, McMaster. Hearn, Fooks,
Jacobs, Schley, Davis, Kilgour, and Waters—32.
Negative—Messrs. Ricaud, Donaldson, Weems,
Brent of Charles, Jenifer, Howard, Buchanan
Bell, Welch, Ridgely, Lloyd, Sherwood, of Talbot,
Colston, Dashiell, Phelps, Constable, McCullough.
Miller, McLane, Tuck, Bowling. Spencer,
Grason, George, Wright, Thomas, Shriver,
Gaither, Biser, Annan, Sappington, Stephenson
McHenry, Magraw, Nelson, Carter, Thawley,
Stewart of Caroline, Hardcastle, Gwinn, Stew-
art of Baltimore city, Brent, of Baltimore city,
Sherwood, of Baltimore city, Ware, Fiery, Neill,
John Newcomer, Harbine. Michael Newcomer
Brewer, Anderson, Weber, Hollyday, Fitzpatrick,
Smith, Parke, Ege, Shower, Cockey and Brown—
60.
So the Convention refused to lay the order on
the table.
The question then recurred on the adoption of
the amendment offered by Mr. BISER to the order
Mr. HOWARD really hoped the gentleman from
Frederick would net press his amendment, be- |
