anything with him that you please. That is
perfectly inconsistent with any declaration
which gives him any legal rights. The ar-
ticle in the bill of rights of 1850 simply
meant to deny that any free colored man ought
to have these rights. Mr. Lincoln has ex-
pressly stated that regarding these people as
houseless and landless, he had no objection to
some disposition of them with reference to
that fact, consistent always with their con-
dition as freemen, I should like to know
whether there is any difficulty in the Legis-
lature's making provision for houseless and
landless persons, and for preserving peace and
order, without such an article in the Consti-
tution.
Mr. CLARKE. Mr. Lincoln does not say
"consistent always with their condition as
freemen."
Mr. STIRLING. Mr. Lincoln lays down that
principle. Now I do not want to put into
our Constitution a provision incorporated in
the Constitution of 1850 which simply denies
all rights to that population, and gives the
Legislature the power to re-establish slavery,
for we know that we lived from 1776 to 1850
as a slave State without it, and the avowed
object of it was to reduce the free colored
population of the State back into slavery.
The bill of Mr. Jacobs introduced into the
Legislature some years ago, would have been
unconstitutional under the old Constitution,
because the old Constitution asserted that no
freeman could be deprived of his liberty and
re-enslaved. But this proviso excepted this
population from the benefit of that provision,
and therefore the Constitution of 1850 enabled
Mr. Jacobs to bring a bill before the Legis-
lature, the avowed object, of which was to re-
enslave the existing free colored population
of the State. Leaving it out, prevents that,
and that is what I desire prevented. As for
any reasonable or proper provision, consistent
with the personal liberties of these people,
consistent with their right to life, liberty, the
protection of their property, and to appeal to
the laws of the land, subject to these ex-
ceptions, necessarily belonging to any class
of persons in a free community, the Legis-
lature possesses full power over the subject.
What does this clause say? "No man
ought to be taken or imprisoned." Is there
any necessity for saying that the Legislature
may take or imprison the free colored people?
If we are to set them free we do not want
them taken and imprisoned. " No man ought
to be disseized of his freehold, liberties or
privileges, or outlawed, or exiled." Do we
want the free colored population disseized of
their freehold, liberties or privileges? Do
we want them outlawed or exiled? The only
thing in reference to the reasonable disposi-
tion of this population, which this Constitu-
tion, as it now stands, forbids, and which it
prevents, is the compulsory exile of the free
colored population; and that I want to pre- |
vent. It is in plain terms the only difference
with regard to the matter. If the Constitu-
tion, with the proviso, would have the effect
of giving the Legislature power compulsorily
to drive the free colored population out of the
State, that is just what I want to prevent.
With regard to everything else, the Consti-
tution gives them ample power, so far as the
necessities of the State are involved. I do
not intend to discuss now how far these ne-
cessities extend, but when the question is
discussed, I have no doubt that my friend
from Prince George's (Mr. Clarke) and my-
self will differ very widely. Whatever else
may be required, the proviso is perfectly un-
necessary, while it is inconsistent with the
subsequent provision of the bill of rights,
which I have no doubt the Convention intend
to adopt.
Mr. PURNELL. I entirely agree with the
gentleman from Baltimore city (Mr. Stirling)
in his view with regard to the majority re-
port of the Committee on the Declaration of
Rights with reference to this subject. An
evil might be visited upon this class of peo-
ple under certain circumstances; but I think
the provision embraced in the Declaration of
Rights and reported by the committee will
guard them against any invasion of their
rights. So far as respects the status of the
free negro, previous to 1850, there was a law
which prohibited the manumission of slaves
in the State. Mr Jacobs' position was a
most extraordinary one, and a most signal
failure. He started out with the proposition
of enslaving all the freemen; but the result
was, that instead of enslaving the freemen,
he had liberated all the slaves. That is the
fact, and if he had been sent to the city of
Annapolis once more, it might halve saved
the necessity for this article of emancipation
embraced in the bill of rights. But the good
sense of the people saw proper to consign him
to a position, where, perhaps, he will remain
throughout the balance of his life.
Suppose the Convention adopts a system of
emancipation. In what position does it leave
the free negro, or those that will become free
under the provisions embraced in the Decla-
ration of Rights. They will occupy the same
status now occupied by the free negro. They
will be turned out, those that see proper to
go. to their own exertions. Others of the
infirm class will perhaps remain with kind
and humane masters and perform service, the
only remuneration they will expect and re-
quire being their board and clothing and that
sort of care and solicitude which every kind
and humane master would naturally bestow
upon them. Those that go forth to throw
themselves upon their own exertions, will of
course come under the provisions of the law
which regulates free negroes and their status
in the State, and be bound by the provisions
of those laws. The guard proposed in the
bill of rights, I think is a very wholesome |
