me to interrupt him a moment? I have an
amendment to the proposition, which I think
if he will accept it, would probably meet the
unanimous concurrence of the house, if it is
only desired to reach the conclusion indicated
I will read it, and then he can go on with his
remarks if he sees proper. I do not suppose
that we take away from the legislature, by
the 40th section, the power to receive any-
thing which may be granted by Congress
but I am perfectly willing lo put it beyond
doubt, by offering a proposition fairly cover-
ing; every question of the sort, without spe-
cific reference to this. It is Ibis :
"The general assembly shall have power to
receive from the United States any grant or
donation of land, money or securities for any
purpose designated by the United States,
and shall administer or distribute the same
according to the conditions of the said grant."
Mr. MILLER resumed: I proposed merely,
on rising, to answer the argument that has
been made here by the gentleman from Balti-
more city (Mr. Stockbridge,) this morning,
upon the question of property in slaves. I
Bay that the question has been decided over
and over again by the Supreme Court of the
United States, and by the courts of every
State of the Union. The constitution itself
secures and recognizes it as property. And
the State of Maryland has no right to decide
as between master and slave, that that right
of property does not exist. You may eman-
cipate; I agree to that. You have the power
to emancipate. But when exercising that
power justice and right requires that the
property, which has been sanctioned as prop-
erty by the constitution, should be paid for ;
you have no right to destroy slavery without
making compensation to the owners. You
have no right to say that it is not and never
was property. By adopting this constitution
you have precluded yourself from ever assert-
ing that as a proposition of law.
One word in regard to the question that was
argued yesterday by my learned friend from
Baltimore city (Mr. Thomas,) who said that
slavery never had existed in Maryland by
virtue of the common law. He quoted from
the decision of Judge Chase, in the case of
Mahony vs. Ashton (4 Harris & McHenry,
295.) Judge Chase gave that decision sitting
in general court. Exceptions were taken, and
it went up to the Court of Appeals, and a
different decision was pronounced by the
Court of Appeals upon that proposition. I
have that decision here.
Mr. THOMAS. Will the gentleman read it?
Mr. MILLER The question is whether or
not the common law of England recognized
the question of slavery. Let us see what the
Court of Appeals say upon that subject;
"Great industry hath been used, and great
ability displayed by the counsel in the argu-
ment in this cause. The decision, involving
on the one hand the question of freedom or |
slavery to the plaintiff below, and on the
other, great pecuniary interest to persona
claiming negroes under similar circumstances,
demanded it.
"The court have felt the importance of the
subject, and given it their most serious con-
sideration. if this case was before a British
court, it would seem that the question should
be decided according to the British law as it
stood between the years 1669 and 1681, and
not by the law as it may have been modified
subsequent to that period. No adjudged case
in the British books hath been cited) nor have
the court been able to find one comine; up to
the case in the exception. Opposing cases,
as well as opinions of particular judges and
law-writers, have been cited as applicable to
the cases. About the period of Ann Joice's
being in England, a diversity of opinion pre-
vailed on that subject. At one period it was
held by a judge that a slave, by being
brought to England, thereby became free.
Sometimes it hath been held that a trover
would lie, at other times that it would not ;
that the sale of a negro was a sufficient con-
sideration to support assumpsit to pay the
I price; that a master, deprived of his slave,
might support an action per quod servitium
amisit. By British charters and British acts
of parliament, the slave trade hath been
authorized and encouraged, and slaves have
been considered there as merchandise, as
chattels, as property, and have, by a British
statute operating in this State, been subjected
to be sold and disposed of as other property
for the payment of debts."
That is what the court decided.
Mr. THOMAS. He does not say held as mer-
chandise by the common law.
Mr. MILLER. It is the question of common
law which the court is considering. They
proceed to flay:
" Lord Chief Justice Talbot and Sir Philip
York, in 1729, expressly declare, that a slave
coming from the West Indies, with or without
his master, to Great Britain or Ireland, doth
not become free, and that his master's right
in him is not thereby determined or varied,
&c. And that his master may legally compel
him to return. This opinion is recognized
by Hardwicke, acting as chancellor, in 1740,
and that trover would lie for a negro.
Mr. STIRLING. I rise to a question of or-
der, The question before the convention is
whether the legislature shall have power to
receive a grant from the United States. This
is all a very interesting discussion between
lawyers, whether slavery existed in England
under the common law; and I submit that
it does not bear upon that question.
Mr. MILLER. I would submit that the lati-
tude of debate allowed other members upon
this subject, allows me to go on and reply to
the member from Baltimore city (Mr. Thom-
as.) The question is upon compensation for
slaves; and the gentleman from Baltimore |
