the result. For this reason I shall vote against
the postponement.
Mr. CHAMBERS. It will be recollected that
on a former occasion the gentleman from Bal-
timore county (Mr. Berry,) not now in his
seat, but detained by his necessary occupa-
tions, as adjutant-general of the State, in re-
lation to the draft, expressed his views upon
this subject in very strong terms, and that be
informed us that he and the other delegates
from his county were positively instructed
upon the subject. I think it is due to that
gentleman, whose absence is not occasioned
by any attention to his own private concerns,
as we all know, but by attention to his pub-
lic duties, to postpone the matter. I confess
that I regard this the most offensive feature in
the whole constitution. Not only have the
convention proposed to do what I regard as
an act of the grossest injustice, taking our
property without compensation, but to gratui-
tously interpose a provision, denying to the peo-
ple of the State for all future time, through their
legislature, the right to make compensation,
when they may be able to do so and willing to
do so; refusing to them the power to do what I
consider to be the plain dictate of honesty, pav-
ing a man for the property yon take from
him. I ask the convention whether it is not
proper to postpone further consideration of
the subject in view of the absence of the gen-
tleman from Baltimore county (Mr. Berry?)
Mr. SANDS demanded the yeas and nays,
and they were ordered.
The question being taken, the result was
—yeas 18, nays 39—as follows :
Yeas—Messrs. Bond, Brown, Chambers,
Clarke, Crawford, Dail, Davis, of Charles,
Dent, Duvall, Edelen, Hollyday, Jones, of
Somerset, Lee, Mitchell, Miller, Parran,
Smith, of Dorchester, Wilmer—18.
Nays—Messrs, Goldsborough, President ;
Abbott, Annan, Audoun, Carter, Cunning-
ham, Cushing, Daniel, Davis, of Washing-
ton, Earle, Ecker, Farrow, Hatch, Hebb,
Hoffman, Hopkins, Kennard, King, Larsh,
Markey, McComas, Mullikin, Murray, Negley,
Nyman, Parker, Pugh, Purnell, Russell,
Sands, Schley, Smith, of Carroll, Stock-
bridge, Swope, Sykes, Thomas Todd, Val-
liant, Wooden—39.
The convention accordingly refused to
postpone the consideration of the section.
Mr. DENT moved to strike out the fortieth
section.
Mr. JONES, of Somerset, seconded the mo-
tion.
Mr. HEBB moved the previous question.
Mr. DENT. I have the floor, and I have a
few words to say on this motion. It appears
to me entirely unnecessary, and perhaps a
useless waste of words and time to make any
comments upon what seems to be the deter-
mined action of this convention in relation to
the subject now under consideration, which
indeed would excite surprise but for the past |
action of the convention in relation to other
subjects. But I have learned of late not to
be surprised at anything that may occur. We
have but a few days ago passed a section in
this very article, to which I beg leave to call
the attention of the convention. It is in these
words:
" Section 43. The general assembly shall
enact no law authorizing private property to
be taken for public use, without just compen-
sation, as agreed upon between the parties,
or awarded by a jury, being first paid or ten-
dered to the party entitled to such compensa-
tion."
We are called upon to pass a section en-
tirely inconsistent with that which has been
previously adopted. Is not the slave the pri-
vate property of his owner? Do you not in-
tend to take him away for public use? is
not that the ground upon which you base the
claim that the owner of the slave shall be de-
prived of his property? The public use, the
public necessity, say you, demand that he shall
be deprived of this property. Pro bono publico
is the great reason which is urged by these men.
I do not like to characterize it in language
which I think might appropriately be used.
It appears to me that it would be much more
creditable that the convention should leave
this matter open at least to the deliberation
of the legislatures who may succeed us, should
this constitution be adopted, than to preclude
them entirely from any action upon the mat-
ter. Even though it may be taken for
granted that now, at this critical time, when
bayonet logic is appealed to, as has been as-
serted by gentleman upon this floor, it is the
most powerful logic that can be used in our
State to-day, yet the force and power of that
bayonet logic may pass away even in a few
months, and before the legislature provided
for by this constitution shall assemble; and
a different spirit and feeling may prevail
throughout the State. There may be a dis-
position upon the part of the legislature
chosen by the people, to provide some com-
pensation for those who have been ruthlessly
deprived of their property by the proposed
article in this constitution as well as by the
acts which have already taken place through-
out the State, by virtue of the military
power, or the logic of the bayonet which has
been so proverbial and so powerful in our
midst.
it appears to me that it is unfortunate that
the question should be agitated at this time.
It is unfortunate that we should beassembled
at this time for deliberation upon the subject
of the organic law of our State. It is pecu-
liarly unfortunate that there should not have
been that freedom of ballot, and that freedom
of the press, that freedom of speech, which
alone constitute the great palladium of Ame-
rican liberty in these States, or have consti-
tuted them heretofore. We should have
waited until the restoration of these great |
