of repressing treason against the State of
Maryland.
I think that the lessons which are attempted
to be taught by the argument of the gentle
man from Howard, (Mr, Sands) from the
present troubles and distress, and the lamen-
tations of widows and orphans throughout
the land, are entirely aside from this ques-
tion; because from the time of the formation
of the first Constitution for the State of Mary-
land, in 1776, although I contend we have had
revolutions, in the true sense of the word,
that is, attempts to subvert the State gov-
ernment without regard to the forms pro-
vided in the Constitution for its amendment,
yet those things have been done peaceably
and quietly, with the assent of the existing
government, and with the assent, approval
and votes of the people of the State. But there
never has been from 1776 down to the present
time, so far as I have ever heard, any at-
tempts whatever by force of arms, by the
levying of war against the State of Maryland
to subvert its Constitution. Now whether it
is necessary for the punishment of a crime
that has never existed in the State, no in-
stance of which has ever been committed
against the State since its organization as a
Sovereign State—whether it is necessary to
provide for the punishment of such a crime
that we should go back to the more rigorous
and vindictive punishments of the earlier
ages, is the question submitted to the consid-
eration of the Convention, I think we better
leave the subject where the Constitution of
1850 left it. I am therefore opposed to the
amendment now offered, and shall support
the article as it now stands in the bill of
rights.
Mr. BRISCOE. I believe it is a wise rule in
legislation, before any change is made in any
law, to ascertain and understand what rea-
sons there may be for such a change. And
I think that rule applies very forcibly to us,
in our action upon the article of the bill of
rights now before us for consideration. A
proposition is submitted to modify the article
which stands now in our Constitution. I
think the first question we should ask our-
selves is, why was that article incorporated
in the bill of rights? It seems to me that the
wise men who made that Constitution, as
they looked back upon the past history of
the world, at the legislation of former gov-
ernments, came to the conclusion that it was
wise and proper in framing the organic law
of the State of Maryland, to put a limitation
upon the legislative department of that gov-
ernment in this respect. They had read that
the exercise of this power of forfeiting estates
fora longer period than during life had work-
ed injury, injustice and inhumanity in all
governments, and in all past history. And
looking at it in that light, they incorporated
this article in the bill of rights.
We are now asked by the gentleman who |
first made this report, (Mr. Stirling,) without
any reason except that assigned just now by
the gentleman from Howard, (Mr. Sands,)
and which I propose to look into, to untie
the hands of the legislative departments of
the government, and start out upon a new
line of policy for the future. Before that is
done, let us ask what reason there is why
that should be done. The gentleman from
Howard, in a very mild and courteous and
gentle manner, in his reply to the gentleman
from Charles, ( Mr. Edelen, ) indicated to
the Convention that this change was for
the very grave purpose of preventing crime
in times to come; that is, the policy and ob-
ject of incorporating such a provision in the
Constitution of Maryland now, was to pre-
vent the hydra head of treason in all time to
come from making its appearance within the
limits of the State of Maryland. Now, if
there had not been manifested behind and
within the practical operations of the opin-
ions and doctrines of the gentleman from
Howard, so much of inhumanity and injus-
tice, we might have given him credit for
that gentle and kind and courteous manner
in which he desired to address us. But to
my mind, this thing now in contemplation is
so abhorent to every principle of justice, that
1 cannot see how this Convention, without
some very conclusive reasons, can at this
day. in opposition to the lessons of history,
in opposition to the wisdom of past ages,
consent to start out upon this new line of
policy.
We have been taught by the experience of
all governments, we have been taught by the
history of all nations, and the author of the
Declaration of Independence, which is now
very often quoted as high doctrine and au-
thority, has taught us, I think, that men are
more willing to submit even to arbitrary pow-
er, to injustice, and to oppressive govern-
ments, than thoughtlessly and heedlessly to
run into revolution. Jefferson, in laying
down the fundamental principles of govern-
ment, has told us—
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate, that
governments long established should not be
changed for light and transient causes;
and accordingly all experience hath shown,
that mankind are more disposed to suffer,
while evils are sufferable, than to right them-
selves by abolishing the forms to which they
are accustomed."
That is true doctrine. I believe the histo-
ry of the world in all times, the history of
governments in all apes past, have shown
that men do not, unless the iron heel of des-
potism is pressing upon them, resort incon.
siderately to the high offence of treason.
The argument has been urged by my friends
from Charles (Mr. Edelen) and Anne Arundel,
(Mr. Miller,) and it is one that is unanswerable,
that the imposition of over-violent pun-
ishment to check crime has never answered |
