of his services. Need I refer to any more
Scripture passages ?
Mr. SANDS. I would like to have my friend
read the whole of the text in the case of
Onesimus. I am somewhat familiar with it,
and would like to hear it read.
Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's. I will
read it, if the gentleman desires it. I com-
mence at the tenth verse.
"I beseech thee for my son Onesimns,
whom I have begotten in my bonds;
"Which in time past was to thee unprofit-
able, but now profitable to thee and to me ;
'' Whom I have sent again; thou therefore
receive him, that is, mine own bowels ;
"Whom I would have retained with me,
that in thy stead he might have ministered
unto me in the bonds of the Gospel ;
" But without thy mind would I do noth-
ing; that thy benefit should not be as it were
of necessity, but willingly.
"For perhaps be therefore departed for a
reason, that thou shouldst receive him for-
ever ;
" Not now as a servant, but above a ser-
vant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but
how much more unto thee, both in the flesh,
and in the Lord ?
" If thou count me therefore a partner, re-
ceive him as myself.
'' If he hath wronged thee or oweth thee
aught, put that on mine account ;
" I, Paul, have written it with mine own
hand, I will repay it; albeit I do not say to
thee how thou owest unto me even thine own
self besides."
It would be useless for me to refer further
to the Bible, in support of my position that
slavery is a divine institution. It is just as
much sacred, and so held under both the' dis-
pensations, as the rite of marriage. The
same authority that said—" wives obey your
husbands"—"Husbands, cleave unto your
wives"—the same authority gave the injunc-
tion—" servants obey your masters.'' I say
it is of the same divine origin, and can never
be destroyed under God.
The difference between the gentlemen and
ourselves, is that very difference that St. Paul
suggested to the Athenians, on his visit to
Athens. As he was passing by he saw a
temple erected with the inscription "To the
unknown God." They are like the Athen-
ians; they do not worship the God of our sal-
vation. Whilst we worship the God of our
fathers whose teachings are full of wisdom,
truth and justice, they, like the Egyptians
who made every beast their God, have erected
a temple to the negro, at which they not only
offer up their devotions at morn and eve, but
it seems to claim, their continual devotions.
We next come to consider whether the ne-
cessity of the times require that slavery should
be abolished in this State. Is there any ne-
cessity for it?
What are the reasons assigned why slavery |
should be abolished in this State? They say
that it affords material aid to the rebellion.
is that true? Is that applicable to the State
of Maryland, or to any of the BORDER=0 States
not in rebellion? I think the transverse of
the proposition is true. I contend that in the
BORDER=0 States slavery aids and abets the Gov-
ernment of the United States in putting down
the rebellion. What do you do by abolishing
slavery in the State of Maryland? You take
away at once $40,000,000 worth of property,
and almost as much in the yearly productive
industry of the State. That property is now
paying a tax for the support of the General
Government as well as for the support of the
State Government. Remove it and where are
your taxes to come from? Will we been-
abled to contribute to the same extent to carry
on this war against the rebellion if our slaves
are taken away, our productive industry
paralyzed, from which alone we pay our
taxes? Is not rather the transverse of the
proposition, as stated by the gentlemen, true?
You take away $40,000,000 worth of property
now subject to taxation, and all the produc-
tive industry of the State amounting to al- ..
most as much more yearly, which now con-
tributes to the payment of taxes for carrying ,
on this war. That proposition may he true
in the case of States in immediate rebellion
against the Government, But the principle
does not apply to Maryland, and I am as-
tonished that men of sense should advance
such arguments.
I understand that the majority of this Con-
vention propose to free the slaves without
compensation. Now, I want it distinctly
understood beforehand that I shall oppose the
abolition of slavery, no matter under what
phase it is presented to this Convention, and.
with God's will and the assistance of this
strong arm will try to defeat the proposi-
tion before this people, if you pass it here.
But was there ever beard such an outrage
against the rights of the citizens of any State,
as to propose to take from them $40,000,000
worth of property—nay, more, at the time
this war broke out the slave property in this
State amounted to $80,000,000?
Mr. BARRON. $30,000,000. '
Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's. At the
time of the breaking out of this war negro
men that were appraised at $400, were worth
from $1,500 to $2,000, and others in the
same proportion. I say that it would be
$80,000,000 worth of property taken from
the slaveholders of Maryland. I think I have
shown that slavery in Maryland does not give
material aid to the rebellion, that that argu-
ment is not applicable to us. But it is pro-
posed to strike down this institution and with-
out compensation. Now, where in the name
of common sense do you get a precedent for
this action? What justice is there in such a
course? What right, under the law which
governs all countries, have you to take my |
