ages for the property thus taken from me, I
could not recover one dollar. So I might
go on and enumerate cases of this kind, if
my time would allow.
And if gentlemen will turn to page 125 of
the first volume of the debates of the con-
vention of 1850, they will find that even in
than convention, in which there was so much
talk about the injustice and iniquity of eman-
cipation, the very first report upon the sub-
ject which was brought in by Mr. Jenifer,
was in these words:
" The relation of master and slave in this
State shall not be abolished, unless a bill to
abolish the same shall be passed by a unani-
mous vote of the members of each branch of
the general assembly, and shall be published
at least three months before a new election of
delegates, and shall be confirmed by a unani-
mous vote of the members of each branch of
the general assembly, at the next regular con-
stitutional session, not then without full com-
pensation to the master for the property of
which be shall be thereby deprived,"
And there was a great fuss made about that,
because Mr. Jenifer was so very liberal as to
intimate that slavery could be abolished by
the general assembly if compensation was
made to the owners. And that proves an-
other thing, that this is nothing new, in the
State of Maryland. And if gentlemen will
turn back to the pages of Niles' Register, they
will find that one who had been a distin-
guished senator of Maryland in the United
States Senate, now dead, Mr. Kent, I think
was his name, introduced a resolution in the
senate of Maryland, somewhere in 1826 or
1827, providing for. the abolition of slavery
in this State. And I think there was noth-
ing said in his resolution about compensa-
tion; but as I am not clear in my recollection
of that, I will not assert it as the fact.
The PRESIDENT announced that the gentle-
man's time under the rule had expired.
Mr. EDELEN, Like the gentleman (Mr.
Thomas) who has just taken his seat, I can
gay with truth that it was very foreign to my
intention to have occupied one moment of the
valuable time of this body, by obtruding my
views upon this subject upon the considera-
tion of this convention. When the 23d art-
icle of the declaration of rights was before
this body, I took occasion very fully to ex-
press my views in reference to this matter,
and I would not now weary the convention
with my impromptu and undigested remarks,
particularly after the exhibition which we
had here this morning, for I should feel that
I would be doing violence to the wishes of a
large party in this body, who were so anx-
ious this morning to stifle debate and cut off
all discussion upon this question. But the
same reasons which have induced the gentle-
man from Baltimore city (Mr. Thomas) to
occupy the time of this convention, are the
reasons which now actuate and prompt me. |
I have, daring this discussion, heard pro-
positions of law stated here that have fallen
strangely and harshly upon my ears. The
gentleman who has just resumed his seat (Mr.
Thomas) has announced doctrines here which
to me are novel, strange and startling. He
has assumed a position that would falsify the
entire legislative and judicial history of this
State. The gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Negley) pursued the same track upon this
subject. But to them and to any other gen-
tleman who rises upon the floor and attempts
to prove that slaves are not property under
the laws of Maryland, sanctioned by the legis-
lature and by the court that sits above us—I
say to each and all of them, in the words of
Junius—"cease, viper; you bite against a
file."
The learned gentleman from Baltimore
city (Mr. Thomas) attempts to disprove the
position assumed by my learned friend from
Anne Arundel (Mr. Miller) upon this point.
In the brief time allowed me I will not un-
dertake to follow that investigation. But I
will stop here to point to but one assertion of
the gentleman which strikes me as strange,
passing strange. He read to you the charter
given to Lord Baltimore. He' attempted first
to prove that slavery was not recognized by
the common law of England. And then
said, with a great deal of earnestness of man-
ner, that if that was so, a statute of Mary-
land could not disturb it, but that it must
stand for all future time in its fullness and
integrity. Now, I submit to my friend from
Baltimore city (Mr. Thomas) if he ever before
beard the proposition announced, that it was
not competent for the legislative power of
Maryland lo repeal a principle of the com
mon law of England? Then how does he
escape the language of the code from which
he read an ancient act of assembly? Will
he tell me as a lawyer if he has never in his
practice instituted a suit of replevin to re-
cover a slave ?
Mr. THOMAS. No, sir.
Mr. EDELEN. Will he tell me if he never
instituted a suit for trover, or to recover
damages for wrong and injury inflicted upon
a slave? I do not know whether the gentle-
man has had such a practice or not. I could
refer him to decisions of the Court of Ap-
peals; but I will not follow him in all the
views he has taken. He has read the cele-
brated case which originated in 1840. I
leave him to settle that point with the learned
court that sate in judgment upon that case.
My friend from Washington (Mr. Negley)
made a very strange argument upon this sub-
ject this morning; as did also the learned
gentleman from Howard (Mr. Sands.) But
for the life of me, I cannot see but that those
learned gentlemen in what they say to-day
and in what they have said upon this floor
on former occasions, have cut the throats of
their own arguments. What is their argu- |
