tified copy of a law, proving that slavery ex-
ists by law in this State."
If there had been any law, what use for
this enactment ?
"Therefore, be it enacted by the general
assembly of Maryland, that negroes and mu-
lattoes have been held in slavery in this State
as the property of their owners from the ear-
liest settlement of this State."
That is a historical statement, with the
truthfulness of which my colleague very just-
ly takes issue.
"And are, and may be hereafter held in
slavery as the property of their owners, and
that every owner of such negro or mulatto is
entitled to the service and labor of such negro
or mulatto for the life of such negro or mul-
atto, except in cases where such negro or
mulatto can show that by the grantor devise
of the owner or some former owner of such
negro or mulatto, or his or her maternal an-
cestor, a shorter period of service has been
prescribed." [3 Dorsey's Laws of Maryland,
p. 2348.]
Now I say that slavery, trampling upon the
common law of England, trampling upon the
statutes of the colonies, had been forced in,
brought in, and these persons, coming from
their native land, of course strangers to our
laws and customs, and not in a position to
assert and maintain their rights, had been
brought here and sold as slaves, until it had
grown to be an institution of so much magni-
tude and importance that it was recognized
as an existing fact. Long after it had been
recognized as an existing fact, it was declared
that slaves might be so held; but it was not
until 1840 that that was done in the State of
Maryland.
It did not stand as a vested right. It stood
here in spite of law, as in many other places,
there being no law to regulate it, and it hav-
ing grown up as an institution in this State
without the authority and protection of law.
The gentleman from Charles (Mr. Edelen)
says that we have recognized it already as
property in this State. True, for certain pur-
poses, as between us and the masters, we have
recognized a sort of slavery. But I suggest
to him that the citation he made from the
journal of the house of delegates of 1864 does
not show it at all. What was that but an ef-
fort lo recruit the armies of the United States;
and what did we do but hold out an induce-
ment to those who might be supposed to be
best able to induce enlistments, of $100 apiece
for bringing their recruits. We would have
done as much for any man, no matter what
his position might be, in any portion of the
United States; we would have granted him
•cheerfully $100 for every recruit be might
have added to the army upon the quota of
Maryland, to diminish the liability of this
State to the enforcement of a draft.
So that that concludes nothing open vested
.rights, or taking private property for public |
use. But grant for a moment, for the sake of
argument, that it did. What then? That
was a taking of property, upon that theory,
for public uses. It was taken for the use of
the army of the United States, that enjoyed
the use of the property so claimed. The
present case is not so; and I have already
shown the difference. We take no property
from any man for public use. We simply say
that as between the slave claiming liberty by
virtue of his rights as a man, and him who
has owned him hitherto, claiming his labor,
his person, his bone aid sinew and muscle,
by virtue of his rights under the law, the ne-
gro is the person who is entitled to the award
of the court. Then upon what ground are
we asked in this section to provide that the
legislature shall take steps for the mainte-
nance and support of slaves manumitted by
the constitution?
Mr. EDELEN. Will the gentleman allow
me to interrupt him for one moment? What
difference does it make when you take from
me, or from any other slaveholder in Mary-
land my negro, and set him at large, and de-
prive me of all claim to his services, whether
you devote him to the public use or not? Is
it not the same thing? Am I not equally-
damnified? While upon this point, I coin-
mend to the gentleman the celebrated remark
of Mr. Lincoln in his message to the Congress
of the United States upon this point :
"The liberation of slaves," says Mr. Lin-
coln, "is the destruction of property—prop-
erty acquired by descent or purchase, the
same as any other property."
Those are his identical words.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE resumed. Practically, to
those who have owned slaves, and who cease
to be owners of slaves, it makes no difference
whether the slave is manumitted and goes
free and does what he pleases, or goes into the
army of the United States; but there is in fact
a very great difference between taking prop-
erty and retaining it in this condition of prop-
erty and using it as property, and awarding
to another claimant of that property, in a dif-
ferent form, his paramount right. Does not
the gentleman perceive it?
Let me illustrate it. You are a judge upon
the bench. The gentlemen from Charles is
in possession of a farm to which I conceive
that I have a paramount right of interest. I
bring a suit before yon to eject him from that
farm, and recover possession of it myself.
You judge between us that my right is para-
mount, and accord me the farm. He loses
the farm. Now suppose, instead of this, that
you, by the strong hand, having the power
so to do, take that farm and appropriate it to
your own use. Practically to the gentleman
from Charles there is no difference. He loses
his farm in either case; but in the one case
he loses it because there was a paramount
right in some other man, and in the other case
he loses it because you. see fit to take it for |
