|
clouds hanging over us. Possibly there may
be something in store for us better than we
can now anticipate. Certainly no harm can
result from delay. If this terrible blow is to
fall upon the slaveholders of the State, it
will not fall less effectually, it will not
accomplish its purpose one atom less, by
being postponed until a later day. The
constitution can have no effect until the peo-
ple adopt it. Intruding these things into the
constitution will give it no additional claim
to the preference of the people.
As I have before said, gentlemen desire to
take part in the discussion of these proposi-
tions. And I have a still more serious and
pointed remark to make, still more serious I
think in regard to every principle of justice,
morality and common fairness which should
obtain, principles which you recognize, prin-
ciples which in all times have been adopted
in your constitution. My friend from St.
Mary's (Mr. Dent) has read an article from
the bill of rights which has been adopted
here. The whole constitution is based upon
the same principle: "The legislature shall
enact no law authorizing private property to
be taken tor public use without just compen-
sation. " With regard to taking private pro-
perty not for public use, the best jurists in
the country, Judge Story at their head, deny
that right altogether. It can only be taken
for the public use, and then only upon just
compensation. Gentlemen cannot escape this
constitutional prohibition by saying that it
is not for the public use. "No person shall
be disseized of his property without trial by
jury. " If you take away the idea of its be-
ing taken for the public use, you only make
the matter worse; you only fly the more di-
rectly, and with less doubt, in the face of
another provision of the constitution just as
sacred.
I offer these views for the consideration of
the convention; and the only request I have
to make is that gentlemen will allow them-
selves to think.
Mr. NEGLEY. I will not detain the con-
vention long in answering some of the argu-
ments which have been brought forward
against this section. The closing argument
of the gentleman from Kent (Mr. Chambers)
is that this is an unfortunate period for taking
action upon this subject. And the reason as-
signed by him why it is an unfortunate time
is that we are in the midst of public excite-
ment; that we are in the midst of a tremen-
dous civil war, when the passions of men are
aroused to their highest pitch, and when, as
he supposes, they are incapable of exercising
their cool, deliberate judgment. Now. is that
argument a good one? If yon consult the
history of the world, where and when do you
find that men have made the greatest strides
towards civilization and refinement? Has it
been during periods of calm, when society
has not been upheaved by some great convul-
|
sion? No, sir; so long as society remains
calm and quiet, it never makes an onward
step in the progress of human development
and advancement. It is only when society is
shaken to its very foundations that new prin-
ciples are evolved, that new truths manifest
themselves, and society takes a step forward
on the road to civilization and improvement.
The argument of the gentleman would ap-
ply with equal force and truth to what was
done in the times of our revolution for inde-
pendence. When the constitution of Mary-
land was formed in 1776, was it not in the
midst of excitement? was it not in the midst
of a civil war something like the present,
when the great mass of the people on the one
side was arrayed against the great mass on
the other? If the argument of the gentle-
man be worth anything, of course it would
have precluded our forefathers from taking
any important legislative action at that pe-
riod. So we find it in England; so in France.
How was it during the middle ages, in regard
to the elimination of civilization and refine-
ment? Was the march onward made in times
of peace and quiet? No, sir; the forerunner
of all its advancement, of all its progressive
improvements, was always civil commotion.
It was in the midst of wars that Napoleon
gave to France one of the best codes that
France ever had; the Code Napoleon. She
never had a better code of civil law than was
given to her by Napoleon in the midst of his
wars, and the entire history of the world
shows that it is not unfortunate or improper
to legislate on important subjects in times of
civil commotion; because that is the very
time, indeed the only time, that the truths
requiring legislation emphasize themselves
and come to the surface.
Now, in regard to another objection. The
gentleman from Kent says that this section is
a limitation upon the power of the legisla-
ture, and he objects to it on that ground.
Did we not, on Saturday last, pass a number
of limitations upon the power of the legisla-
ture? And were not all those limitations
acknowledged to be of the utmost impor-
tance? If it is right and proper to limit the
legislature in one instance, why, for an equal
reason, and under like cil cumstances, is it
not right and proper to limit the legislature
in another instance? We, in the majority,
believe it is right and proper to limit the leg-
islature in this particular, as much as we be-
lieved it was right and proper to limit it in
regard to special legislation.
And I do not think there is anything so
very serious in passing this section now, even
according to the views of gentlemen; be-
cause the constitution, the very foundation
upon which all legislation in the future rests,
is always subject to the control of the people.
If they choose at some future period to make
remuneration for slaves, they have the power
to do so by altering the constitution in the
|
