doubted elsewhere. This is, then, a question
of expediency. If that postulate be admitted,
what follows ?
Is this convention prepared to-day to say
that in regard to this question of expediency,
no time, no change can alter? Do we not
find every day, every hour of every day, the
expression of the opinion that time, progres-
sive improvements, change in the opinions of
men upon government, carry us along in a
current that we cannot resist, and require
corresponding changes of legislation? Have
not we heard that urged upon this floor?
Have not, gome of us been advertised in the
newspapers as "fossilized," because we enter-
tained the opinions of past days and of past
times? Do we not daily and hourly hear the
doctrine of the changes necessary in legisla-
tion to meet the wants and necessities of the
changing circumstances of the day ?
Then the convention must be prepared, in
my judgment, before it can adopt this meas-
ure, to say that they have the wisdom lo
anticipate what is now in the womb of futu-
rity, what time and circumstances are to
produce, what results the actual working of
their own doings here is to produce. Most
important fundamental changes are here made
in the fundamental condition of Maryland.
Maryland goes forth to the world, after the
adoption of this constitution, In a very differ-
ent character and very different condition
from what she was. Are the members of this
body prepared to say that by any prophetic
inspiration they can foresee all these matters,
and now decide what it will be expedient to
do in the changed condition of the country,
by those who are to succeed them? Are we
wiser than they will be? Have we more
material upon which to form a judgment?
Are circumstances giving us a knowledge
which they will be denied the benefit of?
Are arguments and reasons denied to them
which we have the benefit of? Is there any
reason to justify any one member of this house
in saying that he better knows what ought
to be done ten, fifteen or twenty years hence,
in regard to this matter, that he can judge
both of the necessities of time and place, of
the condition of the country and the wants
of its citizens, than those who live at the time,
and are acquainted and familiar with all
around them?
I do trust and hope that gentlemen will see
the impossibility of any man's placing him-
self upon a pinnacle from which he can ob-
tain such a view of futurity as will entitle
him to judge of and arrange matters con-
nected with the future. We are taught to
believe that the country is growing wiser,
that the means of education are vastly im-
proved. The next generation will have the
advantage of all that we have; all the knowl-
edge that we have will be transmitted to
them. Improvements, if lam to judge of
improvements by what I see here; are made |
with a wonderful rapidity. Shall we say
that wisdom is to die with' us? that knowl-
edge of the wants of the State shall die with
us? We will not permit those who are to
come after us to decide; and why? Not one
individual inember upon this floor has ven-
tured to tell me, and I challenge the asser-
tion of any one reason which can be entitled
to so much weight as to determine this
question.
This is a question about which very wise,
very intelligent men differ. This is proved
by past history. Emancipation has occurred
in nearly all the States of this Union. There
has never been a movement for the depriva-
tion of property without compensation to its
owner. The English people, a very intelli-
gent people, under circumstances very much
less calculated to produce excitement and
feeling—because their colonies were provided
for by the mother country, and the people of
Great Britain proper, those in the islands of
Great Britain, suffered no inconvenience,
having no slaves among them—imposed upon
themselves the burden of remunerating those
with whom they had no personal intercourse,
and paying them for property which was not
at all held among themselves. They paid it
out of their own treasury to the colonies, who
were not called upon to pay.
You propose here to take property away
from its owners, and yon refuse payment for
it. You impose upon them the burden of
supporting it; for I tell you again that there
is no alternative to them. The master must
pay for the support of his manumitted slave,
or they will starve in the street for the want
of the common necessaries of life. To tell
me that aged servants, and women with half
a dozen children, are to provide for them-
selves, is to tell me what my own experience
tells me is not entitled to credit. I have my-
self an aged servant that it costs me just as
much to support as any other individual costs
the party upon whom he is dependent. I
have women and children that I cannot get
rid of on any terms that a reasonable man
would ask, who are an expense to me, per-
fectly incapable of supporting themselves.
Nobody would take them. I have myself
offered to hire out a woman if the person
would impose himself the burden of providing
for her children, but he would not accept
such an unprofitable offer.
I say therefore that you not only take
away the slaves without present compensa-
tion, and refuse to pay it hereafter, and yet
yon impose it upon us to continue to support
these people, and after all this is done, yon
abandon the proper field of legislation upon
the constitution, and undertake to dictate for
all time what those who are to come after
you shall do. This is unparalleled. There
is not another instance of it in your constitu-
tion. As I said before, yon inaugurate great
principles. That is all right. But upon a |
