them. All England was then full of slaves,
whose posterity would by law remain slaves
as with us, except only that the issue fol-
lowed the condition of the father instead of
the mother. The rule was ' 'Partus sequitur
patrem"—a rule more favorable, undoubted-
ly, from the very precariousness of its appli-
cation, to the gradual extinction of slavery,
than ours, which has been drawn from the
Roman law, and is of sure and unavoidable
effect."
Then he goes on to argue upon the petition
of right of Charles I, and the bill of rights en-
acted by the convention parliament of 1688,
As it will consume too much of my time to
read it all, I pass it by and come down to
when he comes to consider the Declaration of
Independence.
" Of the Declaration of our Independence,
which has also been quoted in support of the
perilous doctrines now urged upon us, I need
not now speak at large. I have shown on a
former occasion how idle it is to rely upon
that instrument for such a purpose, and I will
not fatigue you by mere repetition. The
self-evident truths announced in the Decla-
ration of Independence are not truths at all,
if taken literally; and the practical conclu-
sions contained in the same passage of that
Declaration prove that they were never de-
signed to be so received."
Then he comes to the Articles of Confeder-
ation, and the Constitution of the United
States, He says;
"The Articles of Confederation contain
nothing on the subject; whilst the actual
Constitution recognizes the legal existence of
slavery by various provisions. The power
of prohibiting the slave-trade is involved in
that of regulating commerce, but this is
coupled with an express inhibition to the
exercise of it for twenty years. How then
can that Constitution which expressly per-
mits the importation of slaves, authorize the
national government to set on foot a crusade
against slavery? The clause, respecting fugi-
tive slaves is affirmative and active in its ef-
fects. It is a direct sanction and positive
protection of the right of the master to the
services of his slave as derived under the local
laws of the States."
Now is not that a fall, complete and ample
settlement of this question ?
" The phraseology in which it is wrapped
up still leaves the intention clear; and the
words ' persons held to service or labor in
one State under the laws thereof,' have
always been interpreted to extend to the case
of slaves, in the various acts of Congress
which have been passed to give efficacy to
the provision, and in the judicial applica-
tion of those laws. So also in the clause
prescribing the ratio of representation—the
phrase ' three-fifths of all other persons,' is
equivalent to slaves, or it means nothing.
And yet we are told that those who are |
acting under a constitution which sanctions
the existence of slavery in those States which
choose to tolerate it, are at liberty to hold
that no law can sanction its existence !"
Mr. President, there is no need for me to
elaborate this point after the clear logical
argument of Mr. Pinckney which I have just
read to the convention. To me it seems a
work of supererogation; I therefore leave
that point.
Gentlemen seek to get rid of the other
proposition quoted by my friend from St.
Mary's (Mr. Dent,) and pursued still further
by my friend from Kent (Mr. Chambers.) I
have now read one of the highest legal autho-
rities on that subject. I now propose to call
the attention of the convention to a man who
stands eminent in his sphere as one of the
highest dignitaries of the christian church—a
main who well deserves the high and glowing
encomium passed upon him by my venerable
friend from Kent, in his argument upon the
twenty-third article of the bill of rights. I
refer to Bishop Hopkins. In considering this
question of a thief's title, as they call it, he
says:
"We are told, by Malte Brun, that in
Africa, two-thirds of the population are
slaves, which, as the whole is estimated at
ninety millions, would give sixty millions for
the present number of the native slaves, in-
dependent of any new war between the rulers
of that heathen continent. Suppose, then,
that the slavetraders, applying to the king of
Dahomey, were supplied with their sad cargo
of human beings from the multitude who
were slaves already, could they, by any pro-
priety of speech, be called man stealers?"
Mark you, they are slaves already; they
are slaves in their native land. And while
upon this point, will gentlemen tell me, will
they contrast the situation of the slaves in
Maryland, or in any part of the South, with
the condition of an equal number of these
Africans in their original condition in their
native country? Will not their condition
compare favorably with that of any class of
peasantry on the known habitable globe? I
Speak what I do know. I am acquainted
with this institution in southern Maryland.
I represent in part upon this floor, a county
which is the largest slaveholding county in
the State. Charles county, with a white
population of a little over five thousand and
some hundreds, has a slave population of
9,653.
Mr. JONES, of Somerset. Had.
Mr. EDELEN. Had: I accept the amend-
ment. To return to Bishop Hopkins; he pro-
ceeds :
"By all that I have read upon the subject,
I presume that those traders found the slaves
in the absolute power of their heathen master,
and purchased them for whatever price he
was willing to take, without having anything
to do with the mode by which he came into |
