law itself, or as Lord Coke quaintly ex-
presses it, ''runneth back to the time whereof
the memory of main runneth not to the contra
ry." The title that we have in the institution of
slavery is then a perfect one. We have the stat-
ute laws of tin State; we have the decisions of
the highest judicial tribunals; we have the
moral law; we have precedents from the begin-
ning of time; we have the universal recogni-
tion of the institution throughout the world
to show that the title is a vested one, and a per-
fect one. Now, sir, where is the power in
this State to divest that title? Upon what
ground can any authority in this State, either
through the agency of a Convention or other-
wise, destroy this property. The Constitu-
tion of this State, of all the States, recog-
nizes the universal principle of all good gov-
ernment, that private property cannot be
taken even for public use without just com-
pensation.
But independently of that, you must first
establish the necessity for taking the pro-
perty, before yon can take it; either the in-
terest of the State, some great public emer-
gency, some great crying evil to be done
away with, some great physical, moral, or
political good to beaccomplished—you must
establish some one or all of these facts before
you can touch the private property of indi-
viduals. Now, is there any such public neces-
sity in the State of Maryland? Is there any
great necessity why this species of property
should be stricken down at one blow, whilst
every other kind of property is amply pro-
tected? Why strike down this property
which we have shown from time immemorial
has received the especial protection of all the
legislators of this State, because in its nature
it required it? Not that the legislation of
this State has been fur the peculiar protection
and establishment of the institution of slave-
ry; but the guards and protections thrown
around the institution have been such as were
not thrown around other species of property,
because in its nature if required it, It seems
to me in attempting this deed gentlemen are
assuming too much power, and have too extra-
vagant an estimate of their own wisdom. Now
is there any such public necessity in the State of
Maryland that requires this action at our
hands? The people here, as we have seen, are
prosperous. They would to-day, with their
slave property at home, protected by the laws
of the State, be in a thousand fold better condi-
tion to bear the burdens of the taxation of
the Government than they are now.
But it is said, in reply to this, that the pro-
perty is gone; that this property cannot be
held; that a slave can go to his master and
say—" Well, I will go to-morrow "—and the
master cannot stop him; and a slave who can
do that is no longer a slave. Now, sir, tile
duty of the Government in this State, as
I conceive it to be under our Constitution, is
to protect every man in his property and his |
person. The rights of allegiance and pro-
tection are reciprocal rights. If a man owes
true allegiance to the State of Maryland, the
State of Maryland is bound to protect him
in his rights, both of person and of property,
That is a universally admitted principle of
law. Unless the government of this State
shall show that the citizens of this State have
thrown off their allegiance, the Government
is bound to protect them. And I say, then,
that the fact that the slave is not as profita-
ble now as formerly; the fact that the slave
has it in his power to abscond at any mo-
ment, is only accountable for by the reason
that the government of the State has not
done its duty. The market statistics show
the products of slave labor in this section to
be trebly valuable over what they have been
for many years past. If we had had a Gov-
ernor here who had the will to determine
at all hazards that the laws of the State
should be executed, who possessed the bold-
ness and the daring to have stood up and
asserted and maintained the rights of the
people of the State; had the Executive of the
State sent, if necessary, his military down
into the slave counties; had he thrown a
cordon of troops around those counties and
said—" This species of property shall be pro-
tected"—no power in the United States
would have interfered with it for a moment
The argument used at Washington when this
property was fleeing into that city was—
"This is not our business; if you have not
now sufficient protection for property, look
to your government for it; if you cannot
keep them at home yourself, apply to your
Governor for sufficient force to enable you
to do it." That was the universal reply there.
I say, then, that this property, so far from
being valueless under the law of the State
to-day, is worth more to the people of Mary-
land than ever before. If gentlemen act
upon the theory that because they have not
a thing directly in their possession therefore
it is worth nothing, then they might with
equal propriety say that this Union which is
now split in twain is worth nothing lo them,
and they ought to let it go because they have
not now got it, and probably cannot regain
possession. Now, when our people are pros-
perous with this institution, when this pro-
perty is valuable, there is no great public
necessity that requires that it should be de-
stroyed. On the contrary, there are reasons
piled up, like Pelion on Ossa, dating back to
the earliest bistory of the country, showing
that this pioneer institution has developed
the resources of the State, and that if this
property had been let alone; if the guards of
the Constitution had been strictly observed;
if that protection which the State of Mary-
land when she went into the confederacy
stipulated should be afforded her had been
strictly given; if there had been no outside
intermeddling interference; if the people had |
