You may, Mr. President, hear some men
who talk in a wild strain, say "it is neces-
sary to abolish slavery in Maryland to pre-
serve the life of the nation." When I hear
any sensible man make such a statement, I
cannot believe he seriously means what he
asserts. He is only chiming in with a pop-
ular clamor of the day. What! set a few
negroes free in Maryland, and they chiefly
now women and children, and this Union is
thereby to be restored? The statement of
the proposition is its own refutation ! Or if
the Federal Government does take away
all the negroes under a claim founded on
the war power, and thus de facto abolish
slavery, there exists the constitutional duty
and mandate to pay for them, required by
article fifth of the Amendments to the Constitution
of the United States. The last
resort by which the Federal Government
hoped to abolish the institution in all the
States, viz: by an amendment of the Constitution,
Congress has refused to submit to
the States. This paramount policy, this
cherished scheme of the North, the abolition
of slavery in Maryland, will therefore fail,
unless the object sought can be accomplished
through State action, by a sovereign Con-
vention. And this brings us to the inquiry
how can this Convention, acting on just
principles, provide for carrying out the
policy of emancipation in the State?
I am not one, Mr. President, who denies
the power or right of a State by the action
of its own people to abolish slavery on
principles just to all classes of its citizens,
and in a way authorized by well settled
rules. And I am willing at any time to
yield my views and submit to the fair, free
and untrammeled expression of the popu-
lar will through the ballot box. Shall we
have this when the people vote upon this
Constitution ?
In discussing this branch of the subject, I
have nothing to conceal. I am free to avow
nay own opposition to emancipation, as a
simple, naked proposition. I am equally
willing to express my opposition to eman-
cipation based on State compensation
And thirdly, I do not shrink from announcing
my readiness to accept—not favor—but
accept emancipation accompanied with full
fair and just compensation to the slave
owners by the Federal Government, based
upon the census returns of 1860.
The reasons" which lead me to the first
conclusion, I do not deem it necessary to
the purposes of this argument to detail
My opposition to emancipation based or |
State compensation, results from the follow-
ing considerations: Slaves are property,
worth, prior to the inimical action of the
Federal Government against 'slavery, over
forty millions of dollars to the people of the
State. Their marketable value may have
depreciated, but their real value, where the
slaves remain, in consequence of the scarcity
of labor, and the enhanced value of the
products of their labor, is worth more now
than ever before. In the case of those who
have left their masters, most of them are
within a few hours reach of their owners,
and the title is not destroyed, though the
actual possession is withheld by the Fed-
eral Government, Now, has this Conven-
tion by State action, have the people
through the ballot box, a right to destroy
this right of property, without providing
compensation ?
Legally, equitably, morally, the power of
the State Convention—aye, the power of
the people, is not omnipotent Tor all pur-
poses. Even Jehovah's omnipotence is
limited the very law of his being, from
the commission of sin, if such an expres-
sion may be permitted in all reverence. So
the people's power in the sense of right, has
this limitation imposed upon it. Thou
shalt not commit a malum in se. The
taking away of property by the State
without compensation, prior or subsequent,
is robbery, and robbery is a malum in se.
To illustrate my meaning more plainly.
Would this Convention, or the people of this
State, have a right to divest the title of its
citizens to their lands, without compensation
? Would it not be robbery? Would
the State have a right to enter your banks
and seize all your capital, or your stores,
and seize all your merchandise? Would
it not be robbery? Could a majority vote
of the people legalize it? It would be
none the less robbery, though sanctioned by
a majority of the people. It would be
still robbery, a malum in se.—committed by
an aggregation of individuals, whereby
they would secure themselves from the punishments
of an act which if committed by a
single individual would consign him to the
penitentiary. Slaves are property. Gen-
tlemen may try to avoid the issue as they
please, but the distinction between the
taking away without compensation of this
property and any other species of property,
is a distinction without a difference. What
say the books upon this question? Rights
once vested, privileges once granted or sanc-
tioned by the law of the State cannot be |
