out cause or excuse the people of property in
which by the previous legislation of the State
they have been encouraged to invest the
earnings of their honest toil and industry.
The, annals of civilized nations, I dare affirm,
can furnish no parallel to the appalling wrong
and enormity of this proceeding.
This emancipation scheme involves not
alone the loss of money actually invested in
slaves, but of other interests growing out of
and connected with slave labor. Every one
at all acquainted with the character of the
soil and productions of southern Maryland,
knows that tobacco is the staple product of
that section; that it cannot be successfully
grown and cultivated except by shave labor.
Relying upon that protection which they
fondly hoped the law had thrown around
their rights in slave property, the landhold-
ers in that portion of the State invested large
amounts of money in the building of tobacco
houses on their estates, in the purchasing of
machinery necessary to its production. Now,
with the sudden abstraction of their slave
labor, the cultivation of their most remuner-
ative crop must cease, the land cannot be
turned to profitable account, and the money
invested in houses and machinery, like that
in slaves, must prove a total loss.
The argument has been advanced on this
floor that slavery is wrong and ought to be
gotten rid of, because slave property is taxed
far below its real value, while other kinds of
property are assessed to their full market
value. Now, I submit that this argument
carries with it no force whatever. If the
fact be as alleged, and there be wrong and in-
justice growing out of it, the legislature is at
all times competent to remedy the defects of
the existing system. In answer to this ob-
jection I will state, what is known to every
tax payer, that the real estate of Maryland is
taxed far below its marketable value, taking
the prices that were obtained before the war
as a proper criterion, or even now obtained
in some sections of the State. The law fixing
the assessable value of slaves in Maryland
was passed in the year 1852, at a lime when
slave property was low and before the en-
hancement in price which subsequently oc-
curred and continued up to a very recent
period. No objections, that I am aware of,
were urged against the law at the lime of its
passage, and it was conceded on all sides to
be fair and equitable in its provisions.
The gentleman from Talbot, (Mr. Valliant,)
presented to the consideration of the Conven-
tion a long array of facts and statistics to
prove, that Massachusetts was far in advance
of Maryland in population and all the ele-
ments of material wealth and prosperity.
This superiority is claimed to arise from the
fact that Massachusetts is a free and Mary-
land a slaveholding State. Now, I insist
that the comparative wealth and population
of these two States is not attributable to the |
existence of slavery in Maryland and the non-
existence of it in Massachusetts. It is a no-
torious fact that from the earliest settlement
of the country, from the day when the Puri-
tans first landed upon the rock of Plymouth,
Massachusettes took the lend from Maryland
in the race of population, advancement, and
wealth, and that by means of her fishing
bounties, her manufactures and commerce,
she has continued to maintain that superi-
ority ever since. But if the superiority of
Massachusetts, in point of population and
wealth, is owing to her free labor system,
why do not the same results flow from the
same causes in the States of New Hampshire
and Vermont. Like causes, it is said, pro-
duce the same effects the world over. Ac-
cording to the census of 1860, Maryland has
an area of 9,356 square miles, and a popula-
tion of 687,069. New Hampshire has an
area of 9,280 square miles, and a population
of 326,073. Vermont has an area of 10,212
square miles, and a population of 315,098.
Thus it will be seen that while Maryland has
an area of Territory exceeding in extent that
of New Hampshire only a few square miles,
her population more than doubles that of
New Hampshire. Vermont with an area ex-
ceeding that of Maryland nearly 1,000 square
miles, has within her BORDER=0s less than one
half the population of Maryland. These
States stand side by side with Massachusetts,
free from the depressive influences and blight-
ing curse of slavery, and yet we find them great-
ly inferior in populations and wealth to slave-
holding Maryland. It is evident, then, that
the superior wealth and population of Massa-
chusetts is not the result of her system of
free labor, but is referable to other causes.
It has been contended on this floor that
slavery exerts a deleterious influence on edu-
cation, that wherever it has gained a foothold,
there the people are ignorant and uneducated.
But the charge is left to rest upon the naked
assertion of those who made it. Certainly it
was not sustained by any proof calculated
to carry conviction to the mind of any one
unswayed by fanaticism and prejudice. Sta-
tistical tables have been read on this point to
show that Maryland has a large excess of un-
educated whites over New Jersey. Let this
be granted as true, and still it proves nothing
against the institution of slavery. If the
facts be as contended for by gentlemen on the
majority side of the House, it only shows that
New Jersey has adopted a better and more
liberal system of education than Maryland,
The gentleman from Cecil (Mr. Scott) in
the very interesting speech with which he
entertained the House a few days ago, at-
tempted to be both witty and wise, In his
opinion there was a far greater necessity for
incorporating in the bill of rights of Mary-
land the article defining the obligations of its
citizens to the Federal Government than there
was in the case of Massachusetts, for the rea- |
