I think, therefore, the language that has been
so long used, ought to be adhered to.
Mr. STIRLING. Will the gentleman from
Somerset (Mr. Jones) allow me to suggest to
him that there is nothing in this article about
"the judgment of his peers."
Mr. JONES, of Somerset. There is in a sub-
sequent article. I was speaking of the resto-
ration of the word "freeman" in place of
the word "man," and as the same change
has been made. by the committee in the 22d
article, which is made here, I made the refer-
ence to that article by way of explanation.
Mr. STIRLING. The 22d article says "by
the judgment of his peers or the law of the
land " The naturalized foreigner and the
convict in the penitentiary are tried by a jury,
and no question is raised about its not having
a jury of his peers.
Mr. JONES, of Somerset. I think the times
of Magna Charta better be adhered to,
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. I wish to say one word
about the change in articles 18 and 22 from
the phraseology used in Magna Charta, The
word "freeman" or liber homo in Magna
Charta was a very proper one under the then
existing circumstances; but it has long since
been done away with in countries situated as
our own is, and we have abundant warrant
for the change even in the past history of our
own State, and it is not necessary fur us to
go back to Magna Charta and follow those
old words, when we have abolished them in
other things. For instance, after the adop-
tion of our national Constitution there were
certain States that saw fit to ask, so far as
they were concerned, that there should be cer-
tain amendments to the Declaration of Rights,
and two of the Suites, I think they were North
Carolina and Virginia, proposed the follow-
ing, that there should be an article reading
as follows:
"No freeman ought to be deprived of his
life liberty, or property, but by the law of
the land."
Congress, when they took it up, saw fit to
modify the expression "freeman," and make
it a declaration of the rights of humanity,
and they so improved it, and it now stands
as the fifth amendment to our National Con-
stitution.
"No person shall be held to answer for a
capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless
on a presentment or indictment of a grand
jury, except in cases arising in the land and
naval forces, or in the militia when in actual
service in time of war or public danger; nor
shall any person be subject for the same of-
fence to be put twice in jeopardy of life or
limb; nor shall he be compelled, in any crimi-
nal case, to be witness against himself; nor
be deprived of life, liberty, or property, with-
out due process of law."
No "person" shall, &c. That was sub-
mitted to the States tor their ratification and
approval, and it was ratified and approved by |
Maryland, in common with the other States,
and it stands as a part of our National Consti-
tution to-day, the Magna Charta of America,
and I see no reason why we should not follow
the American Magna Charta in preference to
the English. I therefore hope the phrase-
ology will stand as it is both in the 18th and
and 22d articles of the Declaration of Rights.
The question was upon inserting the word
"free" before the word " man "in the 18th
article, for that it should read "that every
freeman, for any injury done him," &c.
Mr. MILLER called tor the yeas and nays,
which were ordered.
The question being then taken, by yeas and
nays, it resulted, yeas twenty, nays thirty-
seven, as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Billingsley, Bond, Brown,
Chambers, Clarke. Crawford, Dail, Davis of
Charles, Edelen, Harwood, Hollyday, John-
son, Jones of Somerset, King, Lee, Mitchell,
Miller, Parran, Smith of Dorchester, Turner
—20.
Nays—Messrs. Goldsborough, President ;
Abbott, Annan, Baker, Barron, Carter, Cun-
ningham, Cushing, Davis of Washington,
Dellinger, Earle, Ecker, Farrow, Galloway,
Hatch, Hebb, Hopkins, Keefer, Mace, McCo-
mas, Mullikin, Murray, Noble, Nyman, Par-
ker, Purnell, Robinette, Sands, Schlosser,
Scott, Sneary, Stirling, Stockbridge, Sykes,
Todd, Valliant, Wickard—37.
The amendment was accordingly rejected.
Mr. CLARKE. I move to amend this 18th
article by adding to it the following;
"and no person shall be held to answer
for any charge or crime betore a court-martial
or military tribunal, except in cases arising
in the land or naval forces of the United
States, or in the militia when in actual service
in time of war or public danger."
'' Mr. STIRLING. I would ask the gentleman
if that precise proposition is not contained in
the 31st article of the bill of rights as reported
here."
Mr. CLARKE. I think it differs a little from
the proposition I have submitted. The 31st
article reads:
"That no person, except regular soldiers,
mariners and marines, in the service of this
State or militia when in actual service, ought
in any case be subject to, or punishable by,
martial law."
That article asserts the proposition that
such and such " ought not to be." I am per-
fectly willing that that may remain, as it has
remained, in the Constitution as the 31st ar-
ticle of the bill of rights. But I desire to
follow the charter which the gentleman from
Baltimore city (Mr. Stockbridge) has held
up to us for an example, the Constitution of
the United States, That charter says in article
5 of the amendments.
"No person shall beheld to answer for a
capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless
on presentment or indictment of a grand jury, |
