legislative departments of the Federal Gov-
ernment, we have a most equitable claim,
which it is difficult to understand how any
citizen of Maryland can refuse, or hesitate to
urge.
The President of the United States took
the pains by a special message to Congress
in March, 1862, to call this subject to the
particular attention of Congress, and to
urge upon that body the justice and pro-
priety of making compensation lo any
State that would emancipate its slaves even
by a process of gradual emancipation. But
this national promise thus held out to the
States to induce their consent to State eman-
cipation, did not stop here. The Congress
of the United States, adopting the suggestion
of the President, a few weeks thereafter
passed joint resolutions, solemnly promising
rational remuneration to any State that should
adopt this policy.
I need not read the resolutions, because they
are appended as an amendment to the reso-
lutions to be acted upon after the Convention
shall have acted upon this 23d article.
And the President at the opening of the
next session of Congress, in December, 1862,
gave us more at large his views upon the
subject, and avowed his support of a gradual
emancipation policy. He showed that by the
adoption of system which should liberate
all the slaves by the year 1900, the object he
recommended would be accomplished.
If, then, Maryland, hearkening to these
suggestions and to such advice, with the
solemn promise of the legislative and exec-
utive departments of the nation to assist in
providing compensation, if she would hot
adopt even a gradual emancipation policy,
goes even beyond what these departments ad-
vised, and gives immediate freedom to her
slaves, I say boldly that every principle of
good faith and fair dealing even as between
individuals and much more on the part of a
great nation demands a fulfillment of that
promise.
It is difficult to understand how any son of
Maryland, whether by adoption or by birth,
can hesitate to urge this demand. It would
seem strange, but it appears that there are
some who are anxious to find excuses against
compliance with that promise. We hear it
sometimes said, and it was said a few days
ago by the gentleman from Baltimore (Mr.
Cushing) that there was an offer once to
make an appropriation for such a parpose,
which offer was refused.
Suppose that that statement was true. It
would be like a man owing a debt, and to
escape the payment pleading the act of limi-
tation. But I deny the truth of the asser-
tion; and I challenge any one to prove the
fact that the Government the United States
ever offered to the State of Maryland com-
pensation for the freeing of her slaves, except |
that contained in the resolutions to which I
have referred.
If this were even so, and no one was in-
jured by such refusal, to hold the State
estopped thereby would indicate rather a de-
sire to avoid the payment of a demand justly
founded, than to stand by her substantial
interests in obtaining for her the payment of
a claim to which she has now for the first
time had an opportunity to establish her title.
For you remember that this action upon the
part of Congress occurred after the Legisla-
ture adjourned. If my memory serves me, it
was provided that emancipation should take
place in the States within a certain period,
that is, prior to January 1st, 1865, I think.
Now, I contend that us the Legislature of the
State of Maryland bud no right to emanci-
pate her slaves, that right being withhold
from her by the Constitution of the State,
and as it is now that for the first time the
sovereign people have sent their representa-
tives here to legislate upon the great organic
law of the State, this is the first opportunity
that Maryland has had to meet the obligation
imposed upon her in that act.
This random assertion just referred to, that
the State refused this payment when she might
have secured it, is founded I presume upon
the vote of some of the representatives from
this State against an amendment proposed to
a bill to provide compensation for slavery in
Missouri.
But suppose they had all voted against
such a proposition, how upon any principle
of law, or justice, or morals, or common hon-
esty can yon torture such a vote by her rep-
resentatives Or some of them in Congress into
an authorized action of the State itself in
refusing compensation? It was the action
of these representatives alone, at a time when
the State had no title to such compensaition,
and when very probably these representatives
desired to avoid committing their State to
any moral obligation to emancipate her slaves
when the people had not indicated any such
purpose, and when an assent to the accept-
ance of such a compensation might possibly
be construed as binding them to adopt that
policy.
I am therefore for pressing by every legiti-
mate means our claim to compensation by the
General Government, founded as that claim
is upon the promises of that Government which
ought and I believe will hold such a promise
sacred. As my friend from Howard (Mr.
Sands) last evening read his platform, I will
add that we of Baltimore county, seven in
number, are pledged each to the other and to
our county to do everything that is honor-
able and fair in order to obtain this compen-
sation.
The second mode of compensation referred
to—compensation by the State itself by taxa-
tion of its citizens— is founded upon very
different considerations, and to that I have al- |
