Volume 195, Page 44 View pdf image (33K) |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
44 The English Statutes in Maryland. [508 based on the authority of the courts, which flatly denies the popular assertion.; Thus the argument begins with these expositions of the respective parties. Then follows the report of the special committee to exam- ine the records, which tells the Assembly that precedents in favor of their view abound. They quote the royal charter, though here they rather miss the point; the Acts of Assem- bly, commissions and instructions to officers —s. constant source of argument throughout the rest of the controversy— and judicial proceedings.3 Following this report, the Lower .House adopt their first address to the Proprietor.' To this a few more words may be devoted. With reference to the Act of Limitation, the country party seemed to lie lacking in precedents; they argue back, there- fore. lo the general thesis that it must extend because it is not limited. In support of this general proposition, we find the first citation, a' least in this dispute, of the case of Blan- kard vs. Galdy. in which connection the writer of the address hastens to point out that Maryland's claim to English laws is belter than that of Jamaica, for Maryland is not a conquered country. Then the address brings forward an argument with which we shall become familiar. If English statutes do not extend to the colonies except by express wording to that effect, how can Magna Charta or other statutes which protect the rights of the subject, passed before the grant of the Mary- land charter, extend thither? This is used as a reductio ad absurdum. Finally, in answer to the Proprietor's advice to enact de novo the statutes that they want, they urge the great practical difficulty and expense in such a plan. The address closes with professions of loyalty to the Proprietor and to the Crown. The report of the Committee of Grievances, in 1724, may be passed over. for it was chiefly historical, reviewing past com- missions and claiming that present ones were faulty in dic- 2 Above, p. 33. 3 Above, p. 34. 4 Ibid. |
![]() | |||
![]() | ||||
![]() |
Volume 195, Page 44 View pdf image (33K) |
Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!
|
An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact
mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.