for the observance of masters and slaves, if
masters had no right to the services of the
slave, or for the observance of the slave if he
did not rightfully owe obedience to his mas-
ter—they never teach us how to sin,
The bishop goes on with his authorities
down to a late period, and gives various in-
stances of their being held as property, and
becoming inheritances to their children. But
I will not trouble the Convention by reading
further. Property, says the gentleman from
Baltimore county (Mr. Berry,) is an unre-
stricted right of use. In that sense a man
cannot own his own house, because he cannot
use that without restriction. He cannot set
fire to it, when it will endanger his neighbor.
It is a restricted use. There is no proposition
you can assert, without some modification to
it. Slave service is just as much due as prop-
erty as any other kind of property. So far
as the restriction is concerned, you cannot
abuse your horse. If a man ill-treats his
horse, be is subject to prosecution. But the
slave is "his money."
One gentleman says that this article in the
Constitution of the United States means ap-
prentices; that if they ran away, their mas-
ters were entitled to their return. I would
not deny that it included apprentices; but
does any man doubt that it meant slaves? It
has been the complaint of the abolitionists
that the Constitution secured the slaves as the
property of their masters. What are you
going to do now" To make them no longer
the property of their masters? Property in
man? We are told by the gentleman from
Talbot (Mr. Valliant,) and by the reverend
gentleman from Caroline ( Mr. Todd, ) that it
is wrong to hold property in man, that great
changes have occurred since slavery was al-
lowed. Sir, the great laws of morals never
change. Truth is eternal. The very same
truth which existed at the day to which refer-
ence has been made, in the first chapter of
Genesis, when God created man—that which
was true then, is true now. That which in
principle was moral then, is moral now.
Gentlemen have no ditch to dodge into to
hide themselves from it. They have no en-
trenchments before them, to protect them
against it. They must meet truth as it al-
ways was, morals as they always were, and
as they always will continue to be They
must receive the account of Onesimus being
sent back, as it was received by all antiquity,
by every divine that ever wrote upon the sub-
ject, up to the period when this madness took
possession of the brains of abolitionists. if
any man can resist the evidence of such a case
as that, where a sick apostle, an aged man,
having a servant in his house, whose services
he required, and whose services he had a right
to command from his master, his master being
under obligation to him, yet would not allow
that servant to remain or to assume any other
condition than to be sent home to become |
subject again to his master. And why? Be-
cause without his authority he dared not re-
ceive him. If any man can resist the Bible
evidence of such a case as this, that man's
mind is not open to conviction.
Before proceeding further, I wish to allude
here to the remarks of gentlemen with refer-
ence to their own emancipation upon this
question; that they have now the privilege of
expressing their sentiments; that they are
now upon a platform on which they can stand
and denounce at pleasure all who differ with
them, and express in full all they think and
feel upon this subject. Where did this talk
come from? Was there ever a period in the
State of Maryland when a free citizen dared
not say he was opposed to slavery? It is a
gross slander upon the law. Gentlemen do
great injustice to the State. There never was
a period, not only when they might not, but
when there has not been a class of people
among us who did not believe and openly de-
clare the system of slavery an evil and a
monstrosity, a system which ought not to be
tolerated; and that these men can now for the
first time express their views, is a delusion on
their part.
Mr. SCOTT. I wish to refer my friend to
facts which occurred under his notice and
judicial direction. In our county, where that
gentleman was judge of our court—
The PRESIDENT. The Chair does not re-
gard this as exactly a proper interruption,
unless the gentleman yields the floor.
Mr. CHAMBERS. The Legislature very wise-
ly, when we had slaves among us, prohibited
excitement to insurrection; and I never beard
the first person, even an abolitionist, say they
did unwisely. It was offensive and criminal.
It was the occasion of incarceration in the peni-
tentiary to do so; and that law has been en-
forced. I was not aware that it had been en-
forced in my district, but certainly it was ill
Baltimore. And for a person of the North
who had been sentenced to the penitentiary,
I have seen in a Boston cemetery, a most
splendid monument erected to his memory.
This shows the different consideration the
matter received there and here. Here he wag
put in the penitentiary; and there he had a
monument erected to his memory.
They tell us, too, that now the people have
this liberty as well as themselves. Are gen-
tlemen aware what category they place them-
selves in, in assuming this proposition, that
they are now for the first time able to tell us
what they really think? What sort of lan-
guage did they hold before? Were they in-
sincere? We never heard in 1850, when that
restriction was placed upon the legislation of
this matter. These gentlemen say it has been
their opinion; why not announce it? Have
they not been in our midst holding language
foreign to their real opinions? Have they
been deceiving us, cheating us, defrauding
us? I cannot think they have. I think bet- |
