exhaustion of national wealth and national
life, to end in the erection of a military dic-
tatorship, the leader of which no man can
know. I do not know who be may be. I
make no prediction.
Mr. JONES, of Somerset. I feel compelled
to support the amendment which has been
submitted by the gentleman from Prince
George's, (Mr. Clarke.) It may not be at-
tended, as has been said, with any very prac-
tical results, if so, it is to be regretted, it
is a reassertion of primary principles.
There is a matter now pending in the city
of Baltimore before a military commission
which struck me with more amazement than
anything that has occurred since the break-
ing out of the unfortunate troubles in which
we are involved. A citizen of the county
that I have the honor to represent in this
Convention, in civil life, never having been
connected with the army or the navy, or with
any martial operations whatever, in the quiet
of his own home, on a Sabbath eve, was
assailed by soldiers; an altercation ensued,
pistols were drawn, and as he alleged he took
the life of a soldier in self defence. That
occurred some eighteen months ago. The
matter was one of great excitement. The
laws took their course. A grand jury was
assembled in that county; witnesses were
biought before them; the whole matter was
fully, fairly and entirely investigated by the
grand jury, four-fifths of whom were the
political opponents of the party charged.
That grand jury in this investigation, as I
was informed, unanimously determined that
it was a case of self-defence, and refused to
find a presentment.
Some eighteen months having rolled around
that citizen, having been frequently an-
noyed, his house surrounded in the dead hour
of night by soldiers, who had been incensed
ever since that one of their comrades should
have been killed, finally appealed to the mili-
tary authorities for protection. He went up
himself, carrying recommendations signed by
many of both parties, citizens of the county in
which I live, stating his peaceful character
and the annoyance which he suffered, con-
tinually threatening him to the utter destruc-
tion of the peace of his family, if continued,
and invoked some order for his protection.
In the city of Baltimore, for this very busi-
ness, he was arrested and put in prison, where
he has been for several weeks; and I under-
stand that on Saturday last a charge of the
murder of that soldier was preferred against
him before a military commission, and he is
held in Fort McHenry to answer that charge,
not in the county where the offence was com-
mitted, not by an indictment of the grand
jury of the county where the offence was
committed, not to be confronted before a petit
jury with the witnesses in the county where
the offence was committed, but away from
his home, away from the opportunity of call- |
ing witnesses, in the city of Baltimore, before
a military commission. A citizen of my
county, never in any way connected with the
army and navy, is brought to answer in a
capital charge, involving his life, before a
military commission !
I submit that to the consideration of my
friend from Howard, (Mr. Sands.) I think
there ought to be some express reassertion of
the rights of citizens in our bill of rights,
similar to that which has bfen proposed by
the gentleman from Prince George's, (Mr.
Clarke.) It is said that it would bevain.
It may turn out to be vain. But peace may
come again, and in more peaceful times we
may review the rights of citizens, and then
they will be found on the statute book, as
the will of the State of Maryland embodied
in the Constitution.
But I will still hope that, notwithstanding
this charge that has been preferred, when
this military commission comes to understand
that the facts of this case have been investi-
gated in the county where they took place
by the grand jury, finally and fully, and
that they preferred no charge, they will de-
cline to entertain jurisdiction in a case so
clearly pertaining to civil administration;
and with that hope I will dismiss this case.
I think the amendment which has been
proposed, reaffirming the rights of citizens in
cases of criminal charge against them, from
the Constitution of the United States, may
very safely be added to the article which is.
now under consideration; and, in that view,
I shall vote for it.
Mr. CLARKE demanded the yeas and nays,
and they were ordered.
The question being taken the result was—
yeas 17, nays 37—as follows :
Yeas—Messrs. Billingsley, Bond, Brown,
Chambers, Clarke, Crawford, Dail, Davis of
Charles, Edelen, Harwood, Hollyday, John-
son, Jones of Somerset, Lee, Mitchell, Miller,
Smith of Dorchester—17.
Nays—Messrs. Goldsborough, President ;
Abbutt, Annan, Baker, Barron, Carter Cun-
ningham, Cushing, Davis of Washington,
Earle, Ecker, Farrow, Galloway, Hatch, Hebb,
Hopkins, Keefer, King, Mace, McComas, Mul-
likin, Murray, Noble, Nyman, Parker, Pur-
nell, Robinette, Sands, Schlosser, Scott,
Sneary, Stirling, Stockbridge, Sykes, Todd,
Valliant, Wickard—37.
So the amendment was rejected.
Articles 19, 20 and 21, were read and no
amendments offered.
Article 22 was read as follows :
Art. 22. That no man ought to be taken
or imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold,
liberties or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled
or in any manner destroyed, or deprived of
his life, liberty or property, but by the judg-
ment of his peers, or by the law of the land.
Mr. JONES of Somerset. I move to amend
this article by inserting after the word " no " |
