My constituents have no other right to that
property than the thief's right? When has
that doctrine become the doctrine of Mary-
land? Our ancestors, those who held slaves
all their lives, thieves and robbers?
Mr. SANDS. If the gentleman will allow
me, I can answer his question.
Mr. MILLER. The gentleman will have an
Opportunity when I have done.
Mr. SANDS. The gentleman permitted one
interruption; I thought he would another.
Mr. MILLER. This plain provision of con-
stitutional law, that private property shall
not be taken for public use without just
compensation, cannot be escaped by saying
that slavery is a nuisance.
Let us look now for a moment to the effect
of this emancipation provision, which it is
proposed to incorporate into the constitution.
Let us look to its effect upon different por-
tions of the State. To the gentlemen who
represent Allegany county with 666 slaves ;
Carroll county with 900; Frederick county
with about 3,200 in all, and Baltimore city
with only about 2,200 shaves, it may not seem
to be a matter of so much importance if those
slaves be taken away from their constituents.
But I beg gentlemen to consider what is to
be the effect upon other portions of the State.
Take the seven slaveholding counties upon
the western shore of Maryland; Anne Arun-
del, Calvert, Howard, Montgomery, Prince
George's, Charles and St. Mary's; what do
you do there? You take away from them
according to the census of 1860, 48,905 slaves.
Then take the seven counties upon the eastern
shore, of Kent, Dorchester, Queen Anne's,
Somerset, Talbot, Worcester and Caroline,
and you manumit there 24,807 slaves, accord-
ing to the census of 1860. In those fourteen
slaveholding counties, you manumit 72,912
slaves.
And by the section under consideration,
you propose to prohibit the legislature, as far
as is in your power, from ever making one
cent's compensation to the owners of all
those slaves. In my county, Anne Arundel,
I know that my constituents had at the time
of the last census, 7,332 slaves. It is a
county as much interested in this matter as
almost any other county in the State, except
the county of Prince George's and the county
of Charles. I know that many of my con-
stituents who own those slaves are married
women, children, minors, orphans and
widows. I know furthermore, that among
the slaveholders are men just as loyal, even
in the estimation of the majority of this con-
vention, as any one in this body. Now,
what is proposed to be done with their prop-
erty? I say it is their property, and it is
useless to argue otherwise. You propose to
take away this property, and to say to the
legislature for all future time that they shall
not pay one cent of compensation for it. You
destroy at once nearly $5,000,000 worth of |
property, in my own county alone, or what
was worth that amount at the time this re-
bellion commenced.
Now, one word in regard to whether the
State or the general government should pay
this compensation. Gentlemen say they come
here instructed by their constituents, to vote
against State compensation. Suppose that
be so; they will not be voting for State com-
pensation if they leave out this section. I
beg gentlemen to bear that in mind. By
leaving out this section, they do not vote in
favor of State compensation, and therefore,
they violate no pledge to their constituents.
Let the future legislatures of the State deter-
mine that question. Let the people in calmer
and more peaceful times determine that ques-
tion, when the finances of the State will be in
such a condition .as will enable the State to
make at least some compensation to somebody
for this vast amount of property destroyed,
taken for public use by this act of emancipa-
tion. I say, therefore, that gentleman violate
none of their pledges to their constituents by
leaving out this section. They do not vote
that the State shall compensate. They do
not put in the converse proposition to that in
the section now, and say that the State shall
compensate. But they will leave it to future
legislatures to determine the question, and
they can determine it just as well as we
can.
The gentleman from Washington county
(Mr. Negley) says, that even if we put this
section in the constitution, the people of the
State have control of the constitution and can
alter it. Does he remember the clogs which
are put around amendments to the constitu-
tion, in the article which has been proposed
upon that subject? You cannot get any
change made in the constitution until fifteen
or twenty years have passed away, by sub-
mitting the question to a vote of the people,
unless three-fifths of all the members elected
to the legislature shall propose an amendment
of that kind. And according to the basis of
representation wihch it is now proposed to
adopt here, if the constituencies of Baltimore
city, and the non-slaveholding counties con-
tinue of the same mind, as their representa-
tives here would indicate they now have, the
time will never come when justice can be
done to the slaveholders of this State. There-
fore, the clogs placed around the modes of
amending the constitution are such, that if
this section passes, it will be a practical de-
nial by the State of any compensation to the
owners of these slaves.
Now, why should not the State make com-
pensation? Some think that we ought to
look to the general government for compensa-
tion. I say the proper mode in which that
thing is to be done is this; compensation if
obtained from the general government is to be
obtained by and through the State. The prop-
er way is not for individual claimants to go |
