their sworn duty to bring before them—at
every court the post-masters, and examine
them as to who is presumed to take anything
from the post-office that they can construe as
incendiary. And although none of these
things have yet gone to the length of declar-
ing what a man might or might not say, yet
acting on the same principle laid down in
that code, an irregular suppression of that
which is construed to be incendiary has gone.
on, until it has not been until within the last
year that in this State you could freely dis-
cuss the great question of the true political
economy of this State, And so it has been
in every State south of us. While it could
be discussed in every city and every village
to the north of us, in all the States that are
free States—here it has been suppressed. And
within the last four years, in the city of Bal-
timore, an assemblage of men, met to discuss
by themselves, In their own way, and within
their own doors, questions that they believed
to be vital to the prosperity and the peace of
the State, has been in the most riotous and
reckless manner broken up, and the persons
thus discussing these questions among them-
selves have been compelled to fly as fugitives.
Now, if the article presented by the gentle-
man from Somerset, (Mr. Jones, ) could se-
cure that freedom of speech in time to come,
I should most willingly vote for it. But I
think there is another article soon to be dis-
cussed before this body that will hereafter se-
cure freedom to the press, and of speech also.
For all these matters of freedom go together.
You cannot make infractions upon the free-
dom of man at one point that you do not
make them at others. And, therefore, I con-
ceive that this article will not be necessary in
the future, however much it may have been
necessary in times past. Still, I should be
very glad to vote for the principle therein
contained. And if the phraseology can be
changed it will give me great pleasure to
vote for the proposed article.
Mr. JONES, of Somerset. If the gentleman
from Baltimore city, (Mr. Stockbridge,) will
indicate the phraseology that is objectionable
to him, I will be most happy to endeavor to
make it conform to his views, so that the
substance is preserved.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. As the shortest way of
getting at it, although it will not then con-
form exactly to my idea, I will move to strike
out all after the word "liberty," leaving the
first part, which now reads :
"That every citizen may freely speak,
write, and publish his sentiments on all sub-
jects, being responsible for the abuse of that
liberty,"
Mr. JONES, of Somerset. I have no objec-
tion to that amendment. I will accept it.
The proposed article was modified accord-
ingly.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. There is one other
amendment I desire to offer. I move to |
strike out the words "may freely," and in-
sert the words "ought to be allowed to ;" so
that it will read—" Every citizen ought to be
allowed to speak, write and publish his senti-
ments on all subjects, being responsible for
the abuse of that liberty."
Mr. JONES, of Somerset. I would very wil-
lingly agree to any verbal change that did not
affect the substance; but I cannot accept this
amendment. I hold that this right is beyond
the reach of any power in a republican form
of government, it is one of the absolute
rights of the citizen, and there is no one who
can say to him that he will allow, or will not
allow, its exercise.
Mr. HENKLE, Will the difficulty be met by
inserting after the word "responsible," the
words "to the laws only?"
Mr. JONES, of Somerset. That is implied
necessarily,
The question was upon the adoption of the
amendment proposed by Mr. Stockbridge.
Upon this question Mr. Jones, of Somerset,
called for the yeas and nays, and they were
ordered.
The question was then taken, by yeas and
nays, and resulted—yeas 43, nays 10—as fol-
lows ;
Yeas—Messrs, Abbott, Annan, Baker,
Brown, Clarke, Cunningham, Cushing, Dan-
iel, Davis of Washington, Duvall, Ecker,
Farrow, Galloway, Greene, Hebb, Henkle,
Hodson, Hopkins, Hopper, Horsey, Jones of Ce-
cil, Keefer, Larsh, Markey, McComas, Morgan,
Mullikin, Murray, Negley, Nyman, Robinette,
Russell, Schlosser, Scott, Smith of Carroll,
Smith of Worcester, Sneary, Stockbridge,
Swope, Sykes, Thomas, Todd, Wooden—43.
Nays—Messrs. Harwood, Jones of Somer-
set, King, Mitchell, Miller, Parker, Parran,
Stirling, Valliant, Wickard—10.
Pending the call of the yeas and nays the
following explanations were made by mem-
bers, as their names were culled :
Mr. CLARKE. Before voting I desire to say
that if the adoption of this amendment will
secure the adoption of this article, I have no
abjection to the amendment being made. I
regard " ought to" to be equivalent to " shall."
That phrase runs all through this bill of rights,
and it has been over and over again asserted
that ''ought to be'' means ''shall be.'' And
construing the words in that way, I will vote
"aye."
Mr. KING. I am in favor of freedom of
speech and of the press; and as we have that
already secured, and this is only to make a
a man accountable for the abuse of that lib-
erty, which he would be without this article,
I shall vote against the amendment and the
article. I vote "no."
Mr. STIRLING. I think the expression "may
freely" is better and in Fewer words than
"ought to be allowed to." I do not think
there is much choice between them, but I rather
prefer the former, and therefore I vote "no." |
