The question recurred upon the motion of
Mr. DENT to strike out section forty.
Mr. HEBB moved a call of the Convention
which was ordered.
The roll was called, and the following mem
bers responded:
Messrs. Goldsborough, President; Ab-
bott, Annan, Audoun, Bond, Brown, Clarke
Cunningham, Cushing, Daniel, Davis, of
Washington, Dent, Duvall, Earle, Ecker, Ed-
elen, Farrow, Galloway, Hatch, Hebb, Hoffman,
Hollyday, Hopkins, Jones, of Somer-
set, Kennard, King, Lee, Markey, McComas,
Mitchell, Miller, Mullikin, Murray, Negley,
Nyman, Parker, Parran, Peter, Pugh, Pur-
nell, Russell, Sands, Schley, Stirling, Stock-
bridge, Swope, Sykes, Thomas, Todd, Val-
liant, Wooden—51.
On motion of Mr. STIRLING,
Further proceedings tinder the call were
dispensed with.
The question recurred upon the motion of
Mr. DENT, to strike out section forty.
Upon this question Mr. DENT called for the
yeas and nays, which were ordered.
The question was then taken, by yeas and
nays, and resulted—yeas 13, nays 38—as fol-
lows :
Yeas—Messrs. Bond, Brown, Clarke, Dent,
Duvall, Edelen, Hollyday, Jones, of Somer-
set, Lee, Mitchell, Miller, Parran, Peter—13.
Nays—Messrs. Goldsborough, President;
Abbott, Annan, Audoun, Cunningham,
Cushing, Daniel, Davis, of Washington,
Earle, Ecker, Farrow, Galloway, Hatch,
Hebb. Hoffman, Hopkins, Kennard, King,
Markey, McComas, Mullikin, Murray, Negley,
Nyman, Parker, Pugh, Purnell, Russell,
Sands, Schley, Stirling, Stockbridge, Swope,
Sykes, Thomas, Todd, Valliant, Wooden—38.
The motion to strike out was accordingly
rejected.
Mr. JONES, of Somerset, when his name
was called, said:
I desire to explain the reasons for my vote.
I had desired to offer one or two amendments
to this section, in order that if it passed, it
might pass in a form to operate as easily as
possible upon the class of persons there con-
templated. I had desired to offer an amendment
that the minors should continue in the
condition of apprentices. Then there are
children now under twelve years of age, who
have been reared at great expense to their
owners, who have been taxed by the State,
and the taxes have annually gone into the
State treasury, as well as for county expenses
I think some remuneration ought to be pro-
vided for their owners, inasmuch as they are
to lose the future services of these children
after the expense of rearing them. I had de-
sired to offer an Amendment that the legisla-
ture should provide tor refunding the taxes
which the State has collected upon this prop
erty, which gentlemen here now allege to
have been stolen. As no each opportunity |
has been offered to me, I shall vote "aye"
upon this motion to strike out.
The question recurred upon adopting the
section as reported by the committee on the
legislative department, which section is as
follows:
"Section 40. The general assembly shall
pass no law, nor make any appropriation to
compensate the masters or claimants of slaves
emancipated from servitude by the adoption
Of this Constitution."
Mr. DENT. I know it is out of order to
submit any remarks now, and I do not desire
to offer any except to refer to a notice which
I gave when I submitted the motion to strike
out. I then stated that if the motion to
strike out should fail, I had an amendment
to propose to the section. I will now merely
suggest what was the amendment I desired
to propose. I desired to amend the section
by striking out the words "pass no law,
nor," so that the section would read—"The
general assembly shall make no appropria-
tion to compensate the masters or claimants
of slaves," &c. I desired the legislature not
to be restricted from passing any law for the
purpose of distributing any appropriation
that might come from any other source than
the State treasury. That was the object I
bad in view when I gave notice of the amend-
ment. If there were an appropriation made
by the general government it would become
necessary for the general assembly of Mary-
land to pass some law for the distribution of
the fund. But if this section as it now
stands should be adopted, the legislature,
I think, would be precluded from passing any
such law.
The question was upon adopting the sec-
tion as reported by the committee.
Upon this question Mr. MILLER called for
the yeas and nays, and they were ordered.
The question was then taken, by yeas and
nays, and resulted—yeas 38, nays 14—as
follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Goldsborough, President;
Abbott, Annan, Audoun. Cunningham, Cush-
ing, Daniel, Davis, of Washington, Earle,
Ecker, Farrow, Galloway, Hatch, Hebb, Hoff-
man, Hopkins, Kennard, King, Markey, Mc-
Comas, Mullikin, Murray, Negley, Nyman,
Parker, Pugh, Purnell, Russell, Sands, Schley,
Stirling, Stockbridge, Swope, Sykes, Thomas,
Todd, Valliant, Wooden—38.
Nays— Messrs. Bond, Brown, Clarke, Dent,
Duvall, Edelen. Hollyday, Jones, of Somer-
set, Lee, Mitchell, Miller, Parran, Peter—13.
The section was accordingly adopted.
Pending the call of the yeas and nays, the
following explanations were made by mem-
bers as their names were called.
Mr. CLARKE. In voting upon this ques-
tion, I desire to say that I do not regard it as
raising simply the question of compensation
or no compensation by the State. I regard
this section as going farther, as suggested by |
