fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punish-
ment inflicted by the courts of law."
That I think will reach both the legislative
and judicial departments of the government,
and can be properly embodied in one article.
Mr. MILLER. The amendment of the gen-
tleman from Howard (Mr. Sands) has reduced
this question to one of mere form, for be
merely peats these two articles together, leav-
ing out no line or word of either. And the
only reason he assigns for that is that it is
not necessary to cumber this bill of rights
with two articles when one will do as well.
I, therefore, see no particular advantage in
his amendment.
If the gentlemen from Baltimore city and
Howard (.Messrs. Stockbridge and Sands) will
cast their eyes over the l6th and 17th sections,
they will find that those sections relate to one
subject matter as much as do the 15th and 24th
articles. The 15th, 16th and 17th articles are
prohibitions upon legislative powers, the 15th
relating to cruel and sanguinary laws, the 16th
to expost facto or retrospective laws, and the
17th to laws attainting particular persons of
treason or felony, a practice which existed in
England when the bill of rights was origi-
nally framed and adopted. Now if it is
proper to combine the 15th and 24th articles
together, why should not the 16th and 17th
be combined and put in one article. I think
it is best that they should stand as they orig-
inally stood in the old bill of rights. If we
put them together, we make quite a long ar-
ticle; whereas, the beauty of such things, is
the annunciation in brief and terse language of
some simple principle, some great right which
the people reserve to themselves, and say that
no department of the government, the legis-
lative, executive or judicial shall execute for
them. Therefore I think it is very proper to
have those matters which relate to the seve-
ral departments distinct as they are now, and
that they should remain so.
Mr. SANDS. Both these articles are simply
prohibitory, and relate to the same matter
precisely; the one says the Legislature shall
not do it, the other that the courts shall not
doit. Now. if there are other sections which
the gentleman thinks should go together in
order to make this bill of rights more con-
densed and symmetrical, I am willing to agree
to it. I would only suggest, however, that
these two articles being simply prohibitory
as against the legislative and judicial branches
of the Government in relation to the same
matter, I think they ought to be put together.
I do not see that putting a colon in the place
of a period after the word "hereafter," takes
anything from the terseness or plainness of
sentiment enunciated, It rather makes a com-
plete whole of two things which I do not
think there is any reason to keep separate.
Mr. STIRLING. When my colleague, (Mr.
Stockbridge, ) first suggested his amendment,
it occurred to me, as it still does, that in some |
respects it was proper. But I cannot endorae
the proposition of the gentleman from How-
ard, (Mr. Sands.) He proposes simply to put
the two articles together. Now, thait is no
alteration at all. But the idea of my col-
league is that by some sligirt change in the
language of the 15th article, it can be miade
to aamount to positive prohibition in one arti-
cle on both the courts and the Legislatcire.
Bull am inclined to think that it is not a very
material matter, and as it may give rise to
some difference of opinion, on the whole it
may be better to let it alone.
The rni,niul.nr. the Ulupualtioll v[ tile
gentleman from Howard, (Mr. Sands,) is not
properly an amendment to the amendment
of the gentleman from Baltimore city, (Mr.
Stockbridge,) but rather an amendment to
the article itself. The Chair, herealtir, will.
nule that amendments must be marle to apply
to the proposition or subject-matter to which
they are maade.
Mr. SAMDS withdrew his amendment,
The queation being taken on the umenif-
ment of Mr. STOCKBRIDGE, it was not agreed
to.
?Jo further ameoHmonta being offorod, ar-
tides 16, 17 and 18 were then read.
Mr. MILLER. I move to amend article 18
by inserting in the first line the word " free "
before the word "man," so that it will then
read " that every free man, for any injury
done to him in his person or property, ought
to have remedy by the course of the laaw of
the land," fcc. I offer this amendment to
make this article conform to the one in the
present bill of rights. I also see thalt the
same change has been made by the commit-
tee ill another section, fur what reason I can-
not tell. The words of Magna Charta are
nullus liber homo, in both these sections; no
"freeman" ought to he deprived of his
property, &c. Now, I cannot conceive why
there should be this chaange made in these
word-, here, even if the purposes and objects
of the majority of this body should be car-
ried out and the slaves emancipated. The
article will apply just as well to them when
freed, if the word "free" is inserted here,
us it will to the while population of the Staite.
If the plan of graidualemanctioation is adopt-
ed, I do not suppose it is. the object of the
majority here to have this section apply to
them until they are made ccompletely free un-
der the Constitution and the laws which may
be made in pursuance of it. I wish, there-
fore, to preserve, if possible, the old laan-
gilaage of Magna Charta in this respect, and
haive the liber homo of the Magna Charta pre-
served in the word "freeman" in our bill of
rights.
Mr. STIRLING. I agree with the gentleman
from Anne Arundel, (Mr. Miller.) that the
change makes no important difference one
way or other in any legal position. There
is no doubt, so fair as the question of slavery |
