and against the charter granted to Lord Bal-
timore. And from that time to the present,
those unfortunate beings have been giving
their service, their time, their lives and their
issue, to those who claimed to own them
without one particle of law in its justifica-
tion.
But gentlemen tell us that because slaves
have been recognized as property from that
time to this, we now, by the emancipation
ordinance which we have passed, are taking
away from them this slave property, and they
ought to have some compensation for it.
Now, did or did not this constitutional pro-
vision in regard to compensating a man for
property taken from him, exist in 1840? If
it did exist then, I want to ask gentlemen
who are so acute in finding the law, how it
was that a slave who was not free in 1840 by
a manumission deed of his master, a deed
good and valid under the law, and was then
kept in slavery from 1840 to 1846, the courts
of Maryland, when he petitioned for his free-
dom, declared him entitled to it; but when
he sued for the wages that had accrued be-
tween the time he was set free and the time
he sued for his freedom, the same court said
he was not entitled to a dollar. Was that,
or not, depriving a man of his property
without just compensation? If he was free
in 1840, and worked from 1840 to 1846, was
he not entitled to his wages? And if his
master and the court of Maryland said he was
not entitled to wages, was not that taking
from him his property without just compen-
sation, although the court decided that he
was free in 1840, and of course the master
had no right to his services after that time?
And the only difference between that poor
negro man and the white man of to-day is,
that we have declared negroes free; we have
put them back in the same position they oc-
cupied prior to the passage of the act of 1715.
We have not taken away from the slave-
holder any property to which he was right-
fully entitled. We have only decided that
the act of assembly, which gave you the right
to hold back the wages of these poor negroes,
shall no longer exist; but that the negro shall
be entitled to his own wages in his own right,
and nobody else. Now, what is the mean-
ing of emancipation? Is it the taking a
slave from one man and giving him to an-
other? That would be taking private pro-
perty for public use. But it is no such thing.
It is merely declaring that negroes are free ;
that they are entitled to wages for the labor
of their own hands, the sweat of their own
brow. That is not taking property for the
public use.
I refer gentlemen to this ease, and ask them
to read it. It will be found in 8 Gill's Re-
ports, page 322. This is the syllabus of the
case:
" A negro slave was manumitted, bydeed,
on the 1st of January, 1840, but was held in |
servitude, by his master, until the 12th of
May, 1846. HELD, that be could not main-
tain an action against his master, to recover
the value of his services for the time he was
so held in service."
Mr. JONES, of Somerset. On what ground
was that decision based ?
Mr. THOMAS. I have not read it.
Mr. JONE, of Somerset. On the ground
that there was no contract, express or im-
plied.
Mr. THOMAS. The case says he was set free
in 1840, under a manumission deed. The
executor held him from 1840 to 1846 as a
slave. And in 1846 it was discovered that
the manumission deed had been hid away 80
as to deprive the man of his rights. When
the deed was found, a petition for freedom
was filed, and the court decided that he was
free, and had been free from 1840. Then he
sued for his wages, and the court told him
he was not entitled to one dollar of wages
for the services he had rendered through those
six years.
Now, what is the difference between that case
and the one before this convention? I say
that you are not entitled to anything in the
future for these men. You have held them
inslavery since 1715; and you may have
held them before that act. And in that con-
nection, since this law, which I have referred
to for the purpose of showing its falsehood,
is quoted to show that slaves were held from
the first settlement of the country—in this
connection I will read from page 572 of Boz-
man's History of Maryland, in which the
learned commentator goes on to give some
notes in relation to this matter of slavery.
He says:
" It may be further remarked, that if the
'conditions of plantation,' which are sup-
posed to have been issued prior to the em-
barkation of the first colonists in 1633, were
the same, at least as to this particular, as
those subsequently issued in 1636, (which
will appear in the proceedings of the next
year. ) The owner of ' Francisco ' was enti-
tled to one hundred acres of land for ' his
transportation into the province, ' under the
denomination of a 'servant.' This instance,
and more particularly that of ' negro Phillis,'
seem to prove that negroes were then con-
sidered more as legitimate population than
property."
And, gentlemen, by looking back to the
history of Maryland and referring to this
matter will find that Lord Baltimore held out
inducements to emigrants coming from Eng-
land to bring over servants with them. And
it was after they brought these negro servants
over with them they were reduced to a state
of slavery. And they will find by reference
to a case in 4 Harris & McHenry's Reports,
page 501, that the Court of Appeals make this
announcement:
' 'Wherever a person has been taken from |
