Now, a crime of omission is as deeply dyed
With turpitde as the crime of commission.
If the government of the State of Maryland
fails to discharge its duties to me as a citizen,
I have as much claim against that govern-
ment as when it directly violates my rights.
If the State of Maryland fails to protect me
in my property, I have just as much claim
against that government for the loss of that
property, as when without the shadow of
right or law it deprives me by a positive act
of that property.
In law the State of Maryland is bound to
protect its individual citizens in life, in lib-
erty, and in property. We, the individual
citizens, have given up a portion of our natu-
ral rights to the State of Maryland, upon the
express condition that the State protects us in
our lives, our persons, and in our property,
Now, the State of Maryland has not protected
the people of Washington county in the pos-
session of their property. A foreign enemy
has invaded our soil , has robbed our citizens
of their property; has perpetrated the most
outrageous wrongs both upon persons and
properly on our citizens. And I would ask
the gentleman from St. Mary's (Mr. Dent,) if
we have no right to look to the State of
Maryland for protection? What right has
the State of Maryland to claim allegiance
from us, if we cannot look to the State for
protection? I say we have a valid claim up-
on the State of Maryland for the protection of
our property. And if the State of Maryland
fails to protect us in that property, and we
lose it for want of that protection, then we
have as valid a claim against the State of
Maryland for remuneration for that property
as when the State of Maryland cornea direct-
ly, or by its agents—I do not care by whom
or in what form—and ruthlessly takes away
from us our property. There is no distinc-
tion in morals or in law between the two
cases. If the State, without shadow of law,
or of right, deprives me of my property, then
it is the crime of commission; if, on the other
band, the State fails to discharge its known
obligations to me in the protection of my pro-
perty, then it is the crime of omission. There
is no difference at all between them.
If gentlemen want to have the losses in ne-
groes registered, what reason have they to
object to the registration of the losses of our
people? Why discriminate in favor of a
species of property which we deny to be pro-
perty at all? We deny that it is property.
But there is no question about our right to
the property of which we have been deprived
for want of protection on the part of the
State of Maryland. There is no question on
any hand, not even on the part of gentlemen
on the other side, that there is a moral and
legal right to the grain and crops that grow
upon our soil, to the horses and cattle upon
our farms, and the money and patches
we have in our pockets. But we do dispute

on high moral grounds their right to pro-
perty in slaves. On the one Bide there 13
a disputed question, on the other aide there is
none. Still they say we shall not have our
losses registered. Now what sort of justice
is that?
I hope, if this section is to be passed at all,
it will be passed with something of this sort
added to it:
"And provided further, that the aforesaid
law, passed by the legislature as aforesaid,
shall apply to all species of property either
stolen or destroyed by the rebels in their in-
vasion of this State."
Mr. CLARK. I really will not weary the
house by any extended remarks upon this
proposition at this late hour, I rise simply
for the purpose of calling the attention of the
house to the real question involved in this sec-
tion. A great deal of extraneous matter has
been introduced into the debate this morning,
which I had no idea whatever this section
would bring before this body. Those ques-
tions, as I understand them, have been more
or less discussed before. The only question
raised by the section which I proposed was
this:
Slavery was to be abolished. The legisla-
ture was to have no power to pass any law
looking in any way to compensating the
owners of slaves; it was to pass no law
upon the subject. Hence the owners of this
property could not at the next session of the
legislature, or at any succeeding session,
come betoy the legislature and make any
claim or place on record any proof in any
form which the laws would recognize. What
then?
This section wasintroduced. It does not say
the general government ia to compensate. It
does not say the State government is to com-
pensate. It is not, as the gentleman from Balti-
more city (Mr. Stirling) styled it, even an in-
vitation to the federal government to compen-
sate. If any invitation or request was
made, that invitation was made by the gen-
tleman himself, who introduced a section
saying that the general assembly shall have
power to receive from the United States any
grant or donation of land, money, or securi-
ties, for any purpose designated by the
United States. My proposition was entirely
independent of that; simply providing a
mode of proof by which the evidence of title
to this species of property could be preserved ;
nothing more, nothing less. It raises no
question of compensation from any source.
Doing nothing, it does not involve the ques-
tion of compensation at all. If that ques-
tion is raised at all, it is not in this section.
Now I wish to state to the gentleman from
Washington county (Mr. Negley,) that I have
no objection to, but will vote for any pro-
position which ne may offer, in any forum in
which he may desire, if the laws of thil
State are not now anfficient, or if be haa not