of Somerset, Keefer, King, Larsh, Lee, Mar-
key, McComas, Mitchell, Miller, Morgan. Mul-
likin, Murray, Nyman, Parker, Pugh, Ridgely,
Russell, Sands, Schley, Smith, of Dorchester,
Sneary, Stirling, Stockbridge, Swope, Sykes,
Thomas, Wickard, Wooden—56.
The proceedings of yesterday were read and
approved.
On motion of Mr. MARKEY,
It was ordered to be entered on the journal
that Mr. BAKER, of Frederick county, is de-
tained from his scat in the Convention by
sickness.
THE LATE REBEL RAID.
Mr. SANDS submitted the following order :
Ordered, That the President of the Convention
transmit to the President of the United
States, and to the Military Commandant of
this Department, and to the Governor of
Maryland, certified copies of the order adopted
yesterday in relation to the spoliations made
by the rebels during their late raid into Mary-
land.
Mr. CHAMBERS. That resolution was passed
yesterday without any participation on my
part, and I believe without any discussion.
It took me by surprise, I confess; and really
I was not aware of its character until it was
beyond the reach of the House. It appears
to me, comparing it with some former in-
stances of our action here, that it is singularly
strange that such a proposition should have
been passed, or that any further proceedings
to give it efficacy should be adopted. I
find, sir, that as a part of our doings we have
enacted as a fundamental principle in the
government of the State, and as a principle
proper for the observance of all who are to
come after us:
"Art. 13. That no aid, charge, tax, bur-
den, or fees ought to be rated or levied, under
any pretence, without the consent of the
Legislature.''
In violation of this principle we apply to
powers, so far as this question is concerned,
foreign to the State, to designate military of-
ficers to impose a charge without the consent
of the Legislature, required by this article.
Again, we have declared :
"Art. 20. That in all criminal prosecutions
every man hath a right to be informed of the
accusation against him; to have a copy of the
indictment or charge, in due time (if required)
to prepare for his defence; to be allowed
counsel; to be confronted with the witnesses
against him: to have process for his wit-
nesses; to examine the witnesses for and
against him on oath; and to a speedy trial
by an impartial jury, without whose unani-
mous consent he ought not to be found guilty."
Here, disregarding all this necessary pre-
liminary to punishment, we have authorized
a military officer to act as jury, judge and ex-
ecutioner, to carry out his own private judg-
ment, without appeal to any witness or any |
jury, upon a charge which he himself is to
make, the truth of which he is to decide, the
punishment of which he is to inflict.
Again, sir, I find :
" Art. 22. That no man ought to he taken
or imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold,
liberties or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled,
or in any manner destroyed, or deprived of
his life, liberty or property, but by the judg-
ment of his peers, or by the law of the land."
Let my friends upon this floor remember
that this is a solemn declaration of what is
just and right, of a fundamental element of
justice and right, not to be violated even by
our own legislature or by any other tribunal.
Yet, in opposition to every word of this ar-
ticle of the bill of rights, you have provided
that a man shall be deprived of his property
by the judgment and discretion of a military
officer, by the recommendation of the same
body who have decided that this is an ele-
mentary principle of justice and of law. Will
my friends violate the principles thus solemnly
enacted ?
Is it said that this is a military power?
What says the bill of rights upon that sub-
ject? The 29th article says, " In all cases,"
not one exception, and "at all times," whe-
ther in peace or war, "the military ought
to be under strict subordination to and con-
trol of the civil power."
What are we doing? We claim to be a
civil power, and we propose to confer upon
the military power a jurisdiction and the ex-
ercise of a power which we do not ourselves
possess. There is no civil power in this State
that could do as this Convention has under-
taken to do, call upon a military officer to
act at its own discretion, seizing the property
of those whom he chooses to say are guilty
of disloyalty, or have adopted principles of
secession, without proof, without an oppor-
tunity of proof, and certainly in many cases
against the fact, as every man will know. I
say there is no civil power in the State that
has authority to do that. Yet this Conven-
tion, the authors of this very declaration that
"atall times" and "in all cases" the military
ought to be subservient to the civil
power, invites the civil power to be trampled
upon and disregarded, by a military officer to
be selected by the President of the United
States. We have a character to sustain.
We ought to have a consistency to observe.
With regard to the propriety of the pay-
ment of damages to those who have suffered
loss, I do not now mean to enter into that
question. I say that every man should be re-
munerated for the losses he sustains, whether
in the defence of his country, or whenever
his property is taken for public use. Rut far
be it from me to say that it should be paid for
by the process which the resolution passed
yesterday contemplates. Far be it, I trust,
from anybody, when sober reason shall pre-
vail over passion and prejudice, and the in- |
