ticular desire to make any remarks to-night;
but with a view to occupy the time, as no one
else seems disposed to speak, I will crave the
indulgence of the Convention for a time,
though what arrangement I have made of my
argument has been very crudely made.
I thank God that I have lived to see this
hour, when in the capital of my native State,
with unshackled limbs and emancipated voice,
I can plead the cause of a race different from
our own, but equally entitled to freedom.
This, I suppose, will be a sufficient answer
to my friend from Charles county (Mr. Ede-
len,) who seemed to have some doubt
whether I was native or foreign born.—
Mr. President, I have some objections to this
way of designating citizens of Maryland, by
the appellation of foreign born and native
born. If a man is a citizen of the State of
Maryland, it matters not whether he was
born on her soil or not, if his character is
good and he fulfills the obligations of a citi-
zen. There has been a very manifest disposi-
tion here to throw out insinuations against
gentlemen who come from other parts of the
country, particularly if they happen to come
from New England, and more especially if
they come from Massachusetts. For my part,
I indulge in none of those discriminations.
And least of all will I indulge in discrimina-
tions against gentlemen who come from that
section of country which so earnestly and
nobly maintains the rightful authority of our
government in its time of danger.
I hope gentlemen will excuse me, if in the
first effort after our own emancipation, I
should indulge in a little extra liberty of
speech. The gentlemen on the other side of
tills great question have had the fullest lib-
erty of speech ever since my earliest recol-
lections, while that liberty has been denied to
men holding the views which I now enter-
tain. I shall not intentionally abuse that
liberty of speech I have now gained; but if I
run into some excesses, I hope it will be
attributed to the unwonted freedom I now
enjoy.
I was very sorry to hear some remarks
which fell from my friend from St. Mary's
(Mr. Billingsley,) and also some a few days
before from my very venerable and excellent
friend from Kent (Mr. Chambers.) They
both planted themselves, with a, very great
show of bravery, upon the right of free
speech, as if that was in any way endangered
or restricted in this House; and they seemed
to pride themselves greatly upon their deter-
mination to indulge and enjoy a freedom
which nobody ever denied them. And the
latter gentleman more particularly declared
that he would indulge in the liberty of speech
at the mouth of the pistol and the cannon.
I thought it was extremely unkind, when
this Convention has sat here day after day,
and allowed gentlemen on the other side to
get off three or four speeches in succession, |
without a word of reply, for those gentlemen
to come in here and avow their determination
to have liberty of speech. I care nothing
about it so far as this House is concerned,
because we all understand what the facts
really are. But it carries the impression be-
yond these walls that there is some disposi-
tion on the part of the majority to restrict
liberty of speech here.
Mr. BILLINGSLEY. I am not aware of hav-
ing used any such expressions, I spoke of
my rights here as a peer of ibis body, and
said I dame here to vindicate my constituents.
Mr. SCOTT. It was the gentleman from
Kent (Mr. Chambers) who talked about
pistols and daggers and cannon, and such
things.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Who? I? I think the
gentleman must be mistaken. I have no re-
collection of any thing of that sort. I spoke
about the abridgment of the liberty of
speech, and said, as I say now, that the peo-
ple of this State and of the United States,
have been abridged of their liberty of speech.
But I am not going to shoot the gentleman ;
he may depend upon it.
Mr. SCOTT. I have no fears of that. But
tile idea of the gentleman seemed to be that
he was in danger of being shot. If we had
threatened pistols and cannon on others
there might have been some point in such
remarks, otherwise I do not see what appli-
cation they can have here.
I Mr. President, the wide range this discus-
sion has taken rather confounds and confuses
me, to know where to commence to gather up
the many fragments of argument which have
been scattered around here.
Now, with regard to the arguments which
have been drawn from Scripture—and which
I believe every speaker on the other side has
indulged in—I have only to say that when a
speaker forsakes the beaten track of history
and the light of experience, and plunges into
the obscure and misty records of antiquity to
drag therefrom fragments of Scripture, dis-
jointed and but little understood, I think it
but manifests the weakness of the cause he
advocates. I will say this: that if they are
going to prove the institution of slavery by
the Scriptures, I would suggest that the laws
of Moses were not confined to slavery alone,
but embrace other subjects very distinct from
slavery, and if the laws of Moses are good au-
thority for the institution of slavery, they are
equally good for other institutions. And.
when gentlemen parade Scripture here as a,
warrant for holding men in bondage, I want
them to understand that it furnishes the same
warrant for every other institution of the
Jews. And if we are to be guided by the
law of Moses, we might tear down our
churches, dismiss our preachers, and then or-
dain priests and resort to burnt offerings and
other sacrifices. And as the gentleman from
Caroline (Mr. Todd) well said, it would jus- |
