ter of these gentlemen than their description
of themselves would induce us to think.
We have heard some queer things. We
have heard, what I was most glad to hear, the
gentleman from Baltimore county (Mr. Berry)
condemn, in terms of deserved severity, a
young gentleman, (Mr Cushing,) arise on
this floor, in the face of this respectable body,
and tell us—(his ancestor was a citizen of
Boston, by the way, and I had the pleasure of
being acquainted with him, a most respect-
able and modest man )—a gentleman of an age
scarcely of maturity, get up here and pro-
claim and boast of it, that he would have re-
sisted that government, which is "the best
on the face of the earth." Yes, sir; and that
sentiment was received with cheers and clap-
ping of bands; an exhibition which I con-
fess was to me most offensive; and that the
gentleman from Baltimore county ( Mr. Berry)
condemned it in terms of severity was to me
by no means surprising.
We have had another development. The
best and most respectable men, from Chief
Justice Taney down, have been treated by
gentlemen as ignorant of the law, and desti-
tute of any claim to our respect for their high
inoral character or in any one particular. 1
think that sometimes freedom of speech is
abused.
Mr. President, I have said that this Con-
vention have no right to manumit negroes.
The Constitution of the United States in just
so many terms—
(The hour having expired, the hammer
fell.)
On motion of Mr. DAVIS, of Charles,
The time was extended half an hour.
Mr. CHAMBERS proceeded: The Constitution
of the United States, which is the su-
preme law of the land, and has been recog-
nized all over the Union as such says in so
many words that no State shall pass any law
impairing the obligation of contracts. Now,
I say that this will introduce, in many cases,
a most perfect outrage in this very particular.
Contracts will be violated in every sense in
which the violation of a contract can be ex-
pressed. A man has as security for a debt, a
mortgage, to take the case referred to by my
friend from Prince George's (Mr. Clarke,)
and there is no security for the debt in the
mortgage except negroes. They are emanci-
pated. The contract is that the negroes shall
pay the debt. The act of the Legislature de-
stroys that contract. Again, a man has a
judgment against his neighbor. That neigh-
bor has not a dollar of tangible property ex-
cept a negro man or woman. He therefore
levies a fieri facias upon that property to se-
cure the payment of that debt. That is the
condition of the case when this law intervenes,
and says the sheriff shall not pursue his duty
by selling that property. What is the claim
worth? Not a particle. I will not depend
upon my own views merely upon this point. |
I have but one authority to read; but I sup-
pose that will be considered as conclusive, it
is a case decided in Georgia many years
ago, certainly without any reference to its
being used for the purpose for which I am
now using it:
"But if there be no allowance of time
within which to enforce existing and vested
rights, after the passage of the law, the effect
is completely to destroy the right, as if the
contract were annulled or the judgment ren-
dered void whilst the right to regulate the
remedy in its own courts must be incident to
each State, who may modify and change it
as the welfare of society may require, and
whilst as a consequence of this, a law,
changing or affecting the remedy only, is not
considered as impairing the obligation of the
contract, yet an absolute denial of the remedy,
amounting to an exemption of any portion of'
the property, must necessarily impair the obli-
gation of the contract. The distinction has
often been asserted between a law changing
or modifying the remedy only, and a law
which so completely takes away the remedy
as to destroy this right. In the great case
of Ogden vs. Sanders, (12 Wheaton, 213)
one of the judges says :
" A law which in any shape exempts any
portion of a man's property, must impair the
obligation of the contract."
I have not time to enlarge upon it. Here
is the law. The property is liable; it is
pledged for the payment of the debt, and
taking away that property, according to the
court of the United States, is a violation of
this constitutional provision.
But even if this body had the power, I hold
that it is not expedient to act in opposition
to the sentiments of all those who have gone
before us. All who have been considered
wise and great, those who have been consid-
ered good, who have taken a deep interest in
the concerns of their country, all who have
been entrusted by the people with its legisla-
tion, have concurred in the sentiment that
slavery in this State was the most proper con-
dition for the negro; and I think they were
justified by the experience everywhere of
what has been the result of manumission.
I had some cases in my own mind, some ex-
perience with which to enforce this doctrine;
but I am denied by the rules of the House and
by the unwillingness of gentlemen to make
any change in those rules, the time and op-
portunity to refer to them.
I say this is ruinous to the masters; and
nobody can doubt that. We are in the con-
dition, some of us, of having a large amount
of money invested in this species of property.
From $40,000 to $100,000 worth of these ser-
vants have been owned by individuals. They
are stripped of the whole at one blow, with-
out a dollar of remuneration. I am speaking
of the proposition as it is now presented, in
the absence of any pretence that there will |
