sense. If they did not, then this argument
which the gentleman paraded before the
House with so much seeming gratification to
himself and friends, is emasculated and shorn
of all strength and power and falls to the
ground. For it must be conceded that the
rule of interpretation sanctioned by the law
and by common sense is that every written
document mast he interpreted according to
the intention of those who executed it.
But I understand the gentleman to insist.
that the fathers of the Revolution when they
used those memorable words on that most
solemn occasion had the case of the negro
slaves of the country in contemplation, and
intended to assert for them equality and the
"inalienable" right to "liberty." Look for
one moment at the facts of history. Negro
slavery on the 4th of July, 1776, existed in
all the thirteen colonies. Jefferson, Wash-
ington, and most of the signers of the Decla-
ration of Independence were slaveholders,
lived and died slaveholders. Now, if the
theory of the abolitionists be correct, then
must those pure and disinterested patriots of
the Revolution be convicted of the foulest
wrong, the grossest injustice in denying to
the negro race rights which they on a most
solemn occasion, in a most solemn and em-
phatic manner declared was their birth-right
and heritage. As one proud of their glorious
history I am unwilling that its brightness
should be obscured, or its purity tarnished by
the imputation of injustice such as the abo-
litionists would lay at their door. In the
name of that patriotic band of men, the
signers of the Declaration of Independence,
many of whom lived and died slaveholders,
I protest against any such interpretation be-
ing placed upon their words. I protest in the
name of the illustrious four whose portraits
adorn the walls of the Senate chamber of this
capitol, one of whom reposes in death be-
neath the sod of his native county of Charles
and whose descendants and kindred I repre-
sent on this floor. I protest in the name of
that great soldier of the Revolution, Small-
wood, whose mortal remains are comming-
ling with the clods of his native valley in the
county I have the honor in part to represent,
near the spot that marks the last resting place
of his great leader-in-arms, the patriot Wash-
ington.
But, Mr. President, the Declaration of In-
dependence, whether true or false, whether
interpreted correctly or incorrectly, forms no
part of our present system. It has performed
its allotted part in the great drama of human
events and is not to be looked to for light
and instruction upon the questions of the
living present. Surely after the experience
of the past week no one here need he re-
minded that the Constitution of the United
States has swept away whatever there was
inconsistent with its provisions in any ante-
cedent system, and that it is now the supreme |
law of the land. In that Constitution, I af-
firm without fear of successful contradiction,
although the word slave is not employed,
that the institution of slavery is recognized
as a standing institution of the land. Its
existence is recognized in article 1, sections 2
and 9, and in article 4, section 2, and every
one at all conversant with the political his-
tory of the country knows that without such
recognition and protection as was therein
guaranteed, this Union never could have
been formed.
Far back in the early days of the Colony
of Maryland, history records the fact of the
existence of negro slavery in our midst, and
through all the intervening period up to the
present time it has been steadfastly upheld
and sustained by the legislature, executive,
and judicial departments of our State gov-
ernment.
The Constitutional Convention of 1850
positively enjoined the Legislature from in-
terfering with the relation existing between
master and slave, and to-day the specta-
cle of a Convention deliberating in these
halls upon the organic law of the State finds
its only explanation in the fact that the peo-
ple have elevated this species of property into
a sphere of existence far higher and above
that of any other property. Scarcely four-
teen years have rolled away and the safe-
guards and barriers of protection thrown
around this species of property by the Con-
stitution of 1850, are about to be overturned
and broken down. The institution of sla-
very, coeval with our existence almost as a
people, uprooted and destroyed without one
word of premonition so as to enable the peo-
ple to prepare for the extraordinary inconve-
niences which the sudden destruction of an
institution interwoven almost with their very
existence must necessarily entail upon them,
and without one dollar to compensate them
for the thousands they have invested in negro
property. Now, in view of all the antece-
dent legislation of the State on this subject,
I insist that a fouler wrong, a grosser injus-
tice is done her citizens than if the blow was
aimed at any other species of property. In
proportion to the stability, security, and
protection imparted to any article of property,
men invest their means in that property.
The friendly legislation that has been unva-
ryingly adopted by the State from the earliest
period up to the present time has operated as
an invitation to all of her citizens to invest
their capital in slaves, to purchase them at
high prices. Her faith and her honor by
reason of her action in the past have, as it
were, been pledged for the security and main-
tenance of this species of property. To-day
a Constitutional Convention claiming to rep-
resent the sovereignty of the State, with
ruthless and despoiling hand, seeks to undo
that which the legislation of centuries has
contributed to build up, and to deprive with- |
