the means by which his constituents can pre-
serve a record of the property they have lost,
or the evidence of title to the property de-
stroyed.
Mr. NEGLEY. There is no law in existence,
of course.
Mr. CLARKE. I think Congress passed a law
by which curtain citizens could make known
their claimsa against the general government,
established a board, and these citizens have
their remedy there.
Mr. NEGLEY. I understand that law did
not pass Congress.
Mr.CLARKE. We hare a court Of claims,
that is in existence.
Mr. NEGLEY. And Congress has expressly
said that none of these claims shall come be-
fore that court.
Mr. CLARKE.. My own impression was that
it only excluded losses of negroes. I have
known appropriations to be made by Con-
gress to cover losses in the country adjoining
Washington. I saw an appropriation the
other day by which a party got paid for his
houses on the Virginia shore, destroyed by
federal authority.
Mr. NEGLEY. But not for property de-
stroyed by the rebels.
Mr. CI.ARKE. I do not propose by this sec-
tion to raise now even the question of the
right of compensation for negroes, or the
question of the light of the gentleman's con-
stituents to compensation. This section does
not raise that question at all. It only asks
that a mode of proof may be adopted to per-
petuate the proof of title. If the gentle-
man says he has no mode or manner in which
to perpetuate proof, I am willing to vote tor
any proposition which he may offer to pre-
serve the evidence of title of any property
his constituents may have lost, I wish to
make no distinction between classes. The
reason why the properly he referred to was
not embraced in this proposition when it was
adopted was because the gentleman from
Baltimore city (Mr. Stirling) withdrew a pro-
position to that effect, although we had ex-
pressed on our side a readiness to embody
the proposition in this section, and if there is
any fan.tit is upon the other side and not
upon ours.
One word further. This morning when I
stated some reasons for the adoption of this
section, irrespective of the question of com-
pensation, I simply alluded to this fact as one
reason fur its adoption—that if there should
be any appropriation made by the general
government the difficulty would exist of es-
tablishing who were the owners of this pro-
perty and entitled to receive any compensa-
tion, if made. But that is not the Only rea-
son.
The question is a very grave one, and is to
be met hereafter. It is known that there are
a large number of trustees, guardians, and
other parties who have been holding slave |
property in their Charge. Negroes have been
going off from time to time during the last
two or three years. Now, what can execu-
tors and guardians do? The court will not
allow this property to be struck off the re-
turns of the estate. The parties have adver-
tised this property as part of the assets; it is
gone. You now come forward and say
Slavery shall be abolished. It may be that
when slavery is abolished the orphans' courts
will undertake to strike this property off en-
tirely. That is a very grave question. The
law of Maryland only operates upon the ne-
gro within the State. Would the orphans'
court have any right to say that this property
should be stricken off, as the law ia not ex-
tra-territorial, and the property is not within
the State? And what is to be done in this
case in regard to ibe preservation of title?
Or suppose the orphans' court say to the ex-
ecutor—yon shall strike off all this property
and get credit for it. Some time hence, say
ten years, an appropriation is made by the
federal government lo pay those who are at
this time owners of slave property. The
guardian has had this property struck off,
and has had credit for it. The guardian may
be dead; several guardians may have been
appointed; several administrations may have
taken place. The question comes up—who is
to receive this money? Who were the owners
of this property? The party may be dead
who could establish the ownership. The
guardian, administrator, or trustee, who had
the evidence of title, may be dead. The
question might come up, when the fund was
appropriated, and there would be no evidence
to establish the right of the minor or the
creditor to this property—the question might
come up whether it was not ibe laches or the
negligence of the guardian or administrator
that this title was not preserved) or that he
bad not taken evidence to preserve it; and
the question might also come up whether they
would not be responsible upon their bonds,
if they cannot establish the title to the ne-
groes when the appropriation shall have been
made.
There are various questions which might
arise upon this subject. And it is for the
reasons that all these instances may be pre-
served in some legal shape or form, tor what-
ever reason these questions may hereafter
arise in our courts of law, that this section
proposes simply to authorize and instruct the
legislature to pass a law to preserve the proof
of title to this property, so that hereafter
should there be any appropriation made par-
ties may have the means of saying where this
property was at different times. It is io avoid
all those questions which might grow out of
the confusion which would result from wiping
out this institution, and having no provision
in the law of the State in any manner or
form to preserve the evidence of the title;
giving rise to conflicting questions, Josses, and |
