12               The Maryland Constitution of 1864.            [358

bill was actually introduced by Mr. Bingham, of Ohio, for
this purpose, which, after being referred to a committee,
was reported on February 25 ¹⁰ and appropriated ten mil-
lion dollars to carry the plan into effect. Mr. Crisfield
objected, and for this and minor reasons the bill finally
passed out of sight and was not brought forward again.¹¹

But the question was not thus summarily hushed in
Maryland. Emancipation now came to the fore, and re-
mained there till the battle was fought to a finish.

"In this emergency the duty of prompt action became
imperative, and even the advocates of gradual emancipa-
tion upon the President's recommendation found them-
selves powerless in the midst of the claims of a higher
state necessity, which demanded the prompt abatement of
the evil....... While compensation was beyond the ability
of the state, the duty was not the less incumbent to abate
a nuisance which obstructed all the avenues of agricul-
tural, manufacturing and commercial development."¹²

The more radical wing of the Union party¹³ took up the
question, and the fall election of 1863 was fought on this
line. The American, in an editorial in the issue of Oc-
tober 7, 1863, said: "As we predicted at the outset, the
question has forced its way, has compelled attention, until
at last it is the one thing dwelt upon by the first intellects
in the state, by all who are candidates for place and posi-
tion at the hands of the people."

As slavery was recognized and protected by the exist-
ing state Constitution (adopted in 1851) which said: "The
Legislature shall not pass any law abolishing the relation
of master or slave, as it now exists in this state " (Art. III,
Sec. 43), a constitutional amendment was necessary to
emancipation.

¹⁰ House Journal, 37th Congress, 3rd Session, 485.

¹¹ Nicolay and Hay, viii, pp. 456-7.

¹² Gov. Swann's inaugural address, Jan. 11, 1865.

¹³ Not known in Maryland as the Republican party during the

war.