make compensation to the owner, and did so
with great propriety. That was not the case
of a State, as in Maryland, first legalizing
the institution, and at a subsequent day
abolishing it. Slavery came into the District
of Columbia, not by the act of the General
Government, but under the authority of the
two States of Maryland and Virginia, who
ceded that district to the United States, and
when the latter accepted that District, they
took it with the institution so created, and
there was an eminent propriety, if not a legal
obligation upon the Government, when it un-
dertook to put an end to an institution thus
derived, to pay those who might suffer by
its destruction.
But no such obligation rests: upon this
State. Slavery here exists only by her tole-
ration, and to hold that she can never revoke
that permission and prohibit the institution
without paying for it by public assessment.
would, as it seems to me, equally authorize
those who, a few years ago, were making
fortunes among us by pursuit of the lot-
tery business, to insist that we had no right
to prohibit that business by State Legisla-
ture, unless we first paid those who were un-
der the previous laws of the State thus legiti-
mately engaged therein.
These are my views upon the question of
compensation; in favor of compensation by
the General Government, but decidedly and
determinedly opposed to compensation by
the State.
My friend from Prince George's (Mr. Clarke)
quoted the other night from certain resolu-
tions adopted by the last Legislature of Mary-
land, or the Legislature before the last, and
said that he had not changed from that prin-
ciple. If he will go further back he will find
that when I was in the Legislature of Mary-
land in 1858, my record is clear there; that
when the movement was made to call a Con-
vention of the people, I was in favor of the
call of that Convention. And when my friend
from Prince George's (Mr. Belt) introduced
into that bill the provision that the Conven-
tion should not by any act disturb the rela-
tion betwixt master and slave, my name be-
ing called first to that proposition, I said—-
no. I said ''no" for two reasons. I did not
believe the Legislature had the right to in-
struct a Convention of the people; and I
was then in favor of emancipation. I saw
further back than that, that this question of
slavery was not only going to make trouble.
but unless we Were very careful, Would bring
ruin. Upon its very verge we are now top-
pling.
At the election of 1881, the people of my
county again honored me as one of her dele-
gates. I repeated what I had done in 1858.
it that time were also unsuccessful, The
bill came from the Senate chamber, and al-
though our committee in the House took a
long time to consider it, which was no fault |
of mine, for I was not on the committee, it
went back to the Senate with the provision,
"that the Convention should not by any act
disturb the relation of master and slave"
stricken out, and I think, to my friend from
Calvert (Mr. Briscoe,) is due the credit of de-
feating it there, by amendments which con-
sumed the time up to the hour of adjourn-
ment.
Mr. BRISCOE. I offered no amendments.
Mr. BERRY, of Baltimore county. I un-
derstood that it went there very late, and
that it was determined that it should not
go through the Senate, the House having
amended it and stricken out that portion con-
cerning the relation between master and
slave. You offered amendments and spoke
against time.
I propose now to take up the scriptural ar-
gument, and to pay my respects in that par-
ticular to my friend from Prince George's,
who sits nearest me (Mr. Berry;) and who
yesterday brought that question up by quo-
ting from Genesis to Revelation, saying that
in every hook of the Bible the institution is
recognized.
Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's. Nearly.
Mr. BERRY, of Baltimore county, That is
a qualification the gentleman did not make
yesterday. We will accept if, however. He
quoted Genesis, chapters 16 and 17; Ephe-
sians, chapter 6; Colossians, no particular
chapter—taking the whole book, I presume;
I Timothy, chapter 6; and finally, Philemon
first chapter, in relation to Onesimus.
The gentleman speaks of being a religious
man; and, in his closings remarks, he urged
upon us, yon who are engaged in this wild
career against the institution in which we
are supported by the law and the Gospel, to
go to our closets and commune with God, to
now whether fanaticism is religion. Now
I wish to say in reply, that I have solemnly
and seriously done so. I profess to be a re-
ligious man, and to have the fear of God be-
fore my eyes. Perhaps I may not always
Succeed, but I do try to do what is right.
If I fail it is the fault of the flesh, and not
of the heart. After taking there these texts
of Scripture and thanking Him for his pro-
tection, and asking for His guidance, this text
of Scripture came to my view; " If ye know
these things, happy are ye if ye do them."
The point is taken that because slavery
existed under both the Old Testament dispen-
sation and ill the Gospel times, it must be
recognized as a divine institution. But I may
say to this statement, as the Saviour did to
that of the Jews in regard to Writings of di-
vorcement, by which men put away their
wives for small causes: " Moses, because of
the hardness of your hearts, suffered these
things, but from the beginning of the world
it Was not so." (Gen. 1: 26—28.)
The system of service which existed under
the patriarchs had probably very little in it |
