feeling to hire his own slave, taken from him, yet I believe he will act under the strong necessity to hire another man in his place if be comes to labor. If the gentlemen in the lower counties do not wish for labor-if they prefer that their whole agricultural operations should stop, there is more than demand enough for all these free negroes in the other parts of the State. And if there is no demand for them there the army of the United States can take them from eighteen to twentyone, and pay them such wages as will enable them to support their families at home. There is some way of providing for them. If the men that owned them will not use them, the men in the rest of the State will use them. And I should suppose that the army of the United States would take so many of them that their wages would support their families. Mr. TODD. I wish to say with reference to the remarks of the gentleman who has just taken his seat, that I do not see any inconsistency between the course I pursued on a former occasion, when the twenty-third article of the bill of rights was under discussion, and the course I have pursued to-day in offering the section now under consideration. If the gentleman by his eloquence could convince me that apprenticeship is slavery, then I should offer a different section. I would offer a section forever hereafter prohibiting any apprenticeship in the State of Maryland, upon any terms, anywhere, or under any conditions. But I do not see it in that light; and therefore I think no extended remarks are necessary as a vindication of my course upon the ground of inconsistency. I feel myself that my course to-day is perfectly consistent with my course heretofore. | court shall give the preference to the former master of the apprentice, if there be such, and if he shall be a proper person to have the custody of the said apprentice." I propose to make a very few remarks upon this question. I had hoped that I had said my last word here on this long-vexed question of slavery, or on any other subject that bore to it so close a resemblance. I had hoped that my share of the labors of this convention would be discharged, and I should go home without the necessity of again even alluding to this matter. But the course events have taken here this morning, very unexpectedly to myself, compels me, in simple justice to what I have said and done heretofore, to state my position with regard to this matter. In conversation with many gentlemen of the opposition side of the house, I had expressed the hope that this question of apprenticeship would be allowed to rest where the law had placed it; allowed to rest in the administration of the orphans' courts of the several counties, which would, as a matter of course, exercise their best discretion in providing for the wants of minor negroes liberated under the twenty-third section of the bill of rights. I am sorry that I was disappointed in my expectation. I am sorry that the matter has been thrown again into this hall, to be the subject of long hours of debate. But there are some reasons, both on the master's account and on the slave's or the freedman's account, as well as my own, which force me to express the views which I entertain upon this subject as briefly as I can. First and foremost, I consider myself pledged against the creation of any system of slavery by this constitution. I shall vote I have, however, drawn up an amendment against the proposition, unless it be amended to my proposition which I hope I will have to meet the views I entertain, for the reason leave to offer, which will modify it, though not only that I was thus pledged on this I prefer the proposition as it was originally subject to the people who sent me here, but offered by myself, with the modifications I because my whole course since I have been have already accepted, yet, as a compromise a member of this convention is entirely inconmeasure, I propose the following modifica-sistent with the idea that I should favor the tion to insert after the word "minors" in creation of an apprenticeship system. The the fourth line, the words, "incapable in the reasons why I oppose it are these: estimation of said courts of maintaining themselves." Mr. HEBB. I would suggest to the gentleman to add, and whose parents are unable to maintain them." Mr. TODD. I would much prefer the modification as offered by myself. Mr. RIDGELY. I hope the gentleman from Caroline will accept that. Mr. TODD adopted the suggestion, and modified his proposition by inserting "incapable of supporting themselves, or whose parents are unable to maintain them.' Mr. SANDS. I give notice that at the proper time I will move the following substitute: "In the indenturing of any negro apprentice under the laws of this State, the orphans' I put it to gentlemen on the opposition side of the house, and especially from southern Maryland, if negro labor is not a great necessity to them. A strong argument urged against the twenty-third article of the bill of rights was that this labor was absolutely necessary to their existence. Now I put the question whether they desire to drive this labor from their midst; because, in my opinion, they can adopt no more vigorous means of driving labor from their midst than adopting this section. Why? Because the twenty-third article, if the people adopt our constitution, liberates all adults, male and female; all over lawful age. Do you believe that the father and mother, the free man and free woman, are going to sit down quietly in their midst and leave their children in at, Icast a state of half-slavery? Not one out of twenty will do it; but day and night they will be going off and carrying their little ones with them. You lose the labor you now have. Another reason why I oppose the creation of this system is this: You are going to turn loose upon your State thousands and tens of thousands of men and women. You are giving them motives of industry and sobriety, and correct habits. How do you give them these motives? By robbing their homes of all that makes home pleasant and agreeable, loving and endearing? Will you say to the man and woman, you can go off in freedom, but your children must remain in servitude? What is the consequence? Dissatisfaction among them as a class. They have no object for which to labor; no child to educate; no pride to take in their children; nothing to live for save each other. What is to be the result of that? They will be idle. Idleness will beget intemperance in them. You know how wretchedly the negro goes through any trouble. Idleness will follow; universal pauperism will follow. And these people, instead of being an element of strength and prosperity in the State, will become its curse, simply because we have taken from them all motive for honest and honorable exercise. Is not that going to be so? Try its effect by its application to your own feelings and your own consciences. What is the great spur to the exertions of every man? We have children. For them we toil. For them we spend. For them we labor early and late. For them we are sober, discreet, temperate, all that a man should be. Is it not so with this race? They have their human feelings, their human sympathies. Give them some motive for exertion if you do not want them to curse you, and curse the community, and curse the country. What will follow? If they do not, now that they have an opportunity to labor for themselves, and to enjoy the fruits of their labor, become good, sober, honest citizens, or residents, if you do not like the term citi zens, of the community, the law as it stands to-day, and as I propose to embody it in my substitute, will enable you to go into the orphans' court and require of the court that they apprentice to you in preference these children. That is right. We do not want vagrancy. I will go as far as any gentleman in this hall to guard against negro vagrancy. I never want to see it. I will be willing to resort to anything in the world to prevent it. But, in my humble opinion, the only way to prevent this class from becoming vagrants as a class, is to give them proper motives for exertion, labor, sobriety, and every virtue they ought to practice. I hope there will be a disposition on all sides of this house to accept in a spirit of conciliation and compromise the offer made here to meet on the basis of the existing laws of the State; not requiring us, who are pledged to the contrary course, to create a new system, but to meet on the existing laws of the State, simply declaring in this section of our constitution that it shall be the duty of the orphans' court to give a preference to the master in all cases where apprentices must be indented. For that proposition I will vote with all my heart, and against the proposition as originally presented, I must as earnestly enter my protest, believing as I do that the acceptance of that proposition would work harm to the present master, to the negro and to the State; because I do believe that if the negro population of the State today had any idea that you intended to deprive their children of the benefits of the emancipation promised them by this convention, they would go from you in a month in swarms. Before we passed our twenty-third article, it was directly met by gentlemen in our section of the country who owned negroes, and who urged immediate and speedy action in this matter on the very ground that the negroes were deserting them and going off in crowds. It will be so again. If you talk of the creation of an apprenticeship system, they will go from your land in swarms, as the Hebrews went from Egypt, and depopulate your State, take away from you the labor you say you want, and leave us then to till the soil with our own hands or to starve. I tender again to gentlemen on the opposite side the olive branch which I hold outin negroes shall be inden tured under the laws of the substitute I propose to offer, that these the State as they exist this day, and that in they are proper persons to have them, shall thus indenturing them, their masters, where have the preference. So far I will go. For and against the other I must as clearly enter that proposition I will vote with all my heart; my protest. Mr. PURNELL. I would like to ask the gentleman the question whether by the act of emancipation all indented negroes are set free? Does that liberate all the apprenticed negroes, the free negroes now in the State? Mr. SANDS. How can it free a negro that has never been a slave? Mr. PURNELL. I should like to have a categorical answer, yes or no, whether they are liberated who are held in apprenticeship? Mr. SANDS. I will read the article and the gentleman will see. Mr. PURNELL. I have it before me and can read it for myself; I wish to hear from you. Mr. SANDS. I should like to know what construction of it justifies that view of the case? Mr. PURNELL. Then I understand the gen tleman to say that the passage of that article principles is he to treat them? Just as you does not alter the present relation of the ap-do the free negroes now, unquestionably; and prenticed free negroes. How could it? Mr. SANDS. Mr. PURNELL. That is not the question That is all I wanted. Mr. RIDGELY. That question may be followed up by another question: If the act of emancipation does not disturb the relation of an apprentice, can we by this section enslave a man by making him an apprentice? Mr. SANDS. I have no doubt about the matter. What is the section? "It shall be the duty of the orphans' court of the several counties and the city of Baltimore to bind out, until they arrive at the age of twenty-one years for males, and eighteen years for females, all negroes emancipated by the adoption of this constitution." You ordain the emancipation first; and as soon as that takes effect freedom attaches to them. Then after giving them freedom you propose to take it from them again, putting it back into the condition of a slave. Mr. CHAMBERS (in his seat.) Apprenticing does not take away freedom. Mr. RIDGELY. That is not my view at all. I stated that with modifications by which the condition of apprenticeship would be put precisely in the category in which the act of assembly now puts it, I was in favor of the proposition. That is not the proposition of which you are speaking. That is not the proposition now before the house. It has been modified by the consent of the mover. Mr. SANDS. I am speaking of the proposition before the house, the proposition to apprentice the whole class as the condition of their emancipation, although it does not bring them under the law of slavery in fact. Now as to this question asked by the gentleman from Worcester (Mr. Purnell,) how does the twenty-third article of the bill of rights at all interfere with the relation between master and apprentice? How could a man after reading this plain article ask that question? "Article 23. That hereafter, in this State, there shaH be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except in punishment of crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted; and all persons held to service or labor as slaves are hereby declared free." . "Persons held to service or labor "--how ? As apprentices, or indentured servants? No, sir; the plain language is "as slaves." If the article had read, "all persons held to service or labor as slaves or apprentices, are hereby declared free," I suppose in that case the gentleman's views would have been met. Mr. PURNELL. I would like to ask one other question. What attitude will the slave now proposed to be freed under the twentythird article occupy? Will they not occupy the same attitude or status that the free negroes now occupy? The not as the proposition offered here proposes to do. The law as it stands now allows the indenting of the children of vagrant and indigent parents. That is the difference. proposition offered here commands the apprenticeship of the whole class. And I will tell my friends another distinction in this matter. The law as we have it requires the assent of the parent. Mr. RIDGELY (in his seat.) Sometimes. Mr. SANDS. The orphans' courts, now by law, is compelled to give the parent a say in the matter, and to act under that say unless there is a sufficient reason for doing otherwise. This section takes away from the parent all right to have a say in the matter whether the party is a proper person or not. Who knows so well as the parent who may have served that man thirty or forty years? He may be a good, kind master; and then he may be a bad master, a hard master, a cruel master; and yet the father and mother of the child, the persons best acquainted with the habits of the master, are not allowed to come into court, under the section as offered, and to say: "That is a hard master; do not give my child to him; he is a bad master, a cruel master; do not give my child to him." I say again that I am perfectly willing to incorporate a section here which shall place all emancipated negroes precisely on a footing with the present free negroes, and liable to be indentured in the same way under the supervision of the orphans' court. I go further in that substitute, and provide that the master shall have the first offer of such indenture. I am willing to go that far. I am not willing to go any farther; simply because in doing that you take away from these colored people all inducements for honorable exertion, and you drive them in masses out of the State. You do them injustice in first setting them free as a class, and then as a class forcing them back into involuntary servitude; for, mark you, that is the term by which slavery is defined in the constitution of the United States, and that is the way it is defined in the twenty-third article of the bill of rights. "There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude except for crime." I doubt whether, if that question were raised, in one of your courts, they would not decide that there was an entire conflict between the twenty-third article of the bill of rights and the present section proposed to be incorporated into the constitution; because you release them from involuntary servitude by the bill of rights, and then by this section you again force them into involuntary servitude. Mr. CHAMBERS. The relation of husband and wife is an involuntary servitude. Mr. SANDS. That is a very different thing. The great cry always is-don't white men Mr. SANDS. Unquestionably. Upon what apprentice their children? Of course they do, Hopkins, Hopper, Horsey, Keefer, Kennard, and choose their masters too, and they do it | Galloway, Greene, Hebb, Henkle, Hollyday, with the hope of affording the child that sort of education, and teaching him that sort of handicraft, which will make him a good citizen in the future. I am perfectly willing to guard the master; but I think that fairness and justice require us to go no further than the proposition I offer. And I hope the ma-en-45. jority of this house, who have hitherto borne the heat and the burden of the day in this struggle for emancipation, are not going to mar their work. I hope they will not go beyond what is fair and right. I know that the sun has its spots; and this constitution (At this moment the hammer fell.) Mr. SwOPE moved the previous question. Mr. CHAMBERS demanded the yeas and nays, and they were ordered. The question being taken upon sustaining the demand for the previous question, the result was-yeas 33, nays 36-as follows: Nays-Messrs. Goldsborough, President; Audoun, Billingsley, Blackiston, Brooks, Daniel, Dellinger, Dent, Farrow, Hodson, Lee, Markey, Mitchell, Morgan, Parker, Purnell, Sands, Smith, of Dorchester Smith, of Worcester, Stockbridge, Todd, Turner, Wilmer-23. The motion to reconsider accordingly prevailed. The question recurring upon sustaining the call for the previous question, the call was sustained. The question recurred on the adoption of the amendment submitted by Mr. STOCKBRIDGE to the section submitted by Mr. TODD. Yeas-Messrs. Abbott, Annan, Belt, Bond, Mr. MORGAN demanded the yeas and nays, and they were ordered. The question being taken, the result was Nays-Messrs. Goldsborough, President; Audoun, Billingsley, Blackiston, Briscoe, Crawford, Daniel, Dellinger, Dent, Duvall, Edelen, Hodson, Hollyday, Hopper, Horsey, Lansdale, Larsh, Lee, Markey, McComas, Mitchell, Miller, Morgan, Mullikin, Parker, Parran, Peter, Purnell, Smith, of Dorchester, Stirling, Stockbridge, Thomas, Todd, Turner, Valliant, Wilmer-36. The call for the previous question therefore was not sustained. Mr. McCOMAS moved to reconsider the vote last taken. Mr. MILLER and Mr. AUDOUN Seconded the motion. Mr. KENNARD. Is that motion in order? Mr. HEBB. I rise to a question of order.— The object of moving the previous question is to ascertain whether the house is ready to take a vote on the question. If the question had been decided affirmatively there would have been some propriety in it. The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Daniel.) It is the decision of the chair that any vote of the house can be reconsidered. A conclusion in the negative is as much a conclusion as if it were in the affirmative. The motion to reconsider is in order. Mr. WOODEN demanded the yeas and nays, and they were ordered. Yeas-Messrs. Abbott, Annan, Audoun, Brooks, Cunninghan, Cushing, Daniel, Davis, of Washington, Dellinger, Ecker, Farrow, Greene, Hebb, Hopkins, Hopper, Keefer, Kennard, McComas, Murray, Nyman, Pugh, Russell, Sands, Schley, Schlosser, Smith, of Carroll, Stirling, Stockbridge, Sykes, Thomas, Wickard-31. Nays-Messrs. Goldsborough, Pres't.; Belt, Billingsley, Blackiston, Bond Briscoe, Chambers, Crawford, Dent, Duvall, Edelen, Galloway, Henkle, Hodson, Hoffman, Hollyday, Horsey, King, Lansdale, Larsh, Lee, Markey, Mitchell, Miller, Morgan, Negley, Parker, Parran, Peter, Purnell, Ridgely, Smith, of Dorchester, Smith, of Worcester, Sneary, Swope, Todd, Turner, Valliant, Wilmer, Wooden-39. When their names were called, Mr. NEGLEY said: If I could see any practical mode of carrying this amendment into effect, I should vote for it; but under the existing state of society, or the state of society that will be introduced by the liberation of the negroes for the next five or ten years, I see the utter impossibility of carrying this thing out. It must go over to the legislature. The legislature will have control over it. I therefore vote "no." Mr. THOMAS Said: While I am opposed, for the reasons given by me on a former occasion, to the free negroes emancipated by this constitution, from being educated by the general school system of the State, still, if this proposition is to be carried in relation to ne gro apprenticeship, I am in favor of these Yeas-Messrs. Abbott, Annan, Bond, Bris-negro apprentices being educated by their coe, Chambers, Crawford, Cunningham, masters. I therefore vote "aye." Cushing, Davis, of Washing'n, Duval, Edelen, Mr. VALLIANT said: I am in favor of the The question being taken upon reconsider ation, the result was-yeas 45, nays 23-as follows: had created quite a sensation with the opposition, they put me in mind of trout fishing on a warm summer's day; for no sooner was the "bait'' thrown out, than every one caught at it. I vote "no." principle contained in the proposition sub-men on both sides, and also observing that it mitted by the gentleman from Baltimore city; but for the reason assigned by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Negley,) I shall be compelled to vote against it. If there was any provision made for the education of the negro, I should have no objection to it. It would be impracticable in Talbot county. For that reason only, I vote “no.” Mr. NEGLEY said: Regarding this as no system of slavery whatever, being as distinct from it as light is from darkness, regarding it as a measure for the good of the free negro himself, and not at all reinstating him in any condition of slavery, not affecting his status of freedom under the 23d article of the bill of rights, but calculated to operate for the beneThe question then being on the first clause fit of the section of the State where it will of the amendment, as follows: The amendment was accordingly rejected. The question recurring upon the adoption of the amendment submitted by Mr. ToDD; On motion of Mr: PUGH, The subject was divided. exist, I vote "aye." no." "It shall be the duty of the orphans' court Mr. PUGH said: I called for a division of of the several counties and the city of Balti- this question simply because it contained two more to bind, until they arrive at the age of distinct substantive propositions. I do not twenty-one years for males and eighteen years intend to support either. I vote for females, all negroes emancipated by the Mr. SANDS said: The proposition as modadoption of this constitution, who are mi-ified is exactly in substance that which I ofnors, and incapable of supporting themselves, fered as a substitute. For that reason I vote or whose parents are unable to maintain aye." them, subject to such regulations as are now or may hereafter be prescribed by law.' Mr. PUGH demanded the yeas and nays, and they were ordered. The question being taken, the result was -yeas 51, nays 20-as follows: Yeas-Messrs. Goldsborough, President; Annan, Belt, Billingsley, Blackiston, Bond, Briscoe, Chambers, Crawford, Cunningham, Daniel, Davis, of Washington, Dent, Duvall, Farrow, Galloway, Greene, Hebb, Henkle, Hodson, Hoffman, Hollyday, Hopper, Horsey, King, Lansdale, Larsh, Lee, Markey, McComas, Mitchell, Miller, Morgan, Mullikin, Negley, Nyman Parran, Peter, Purnell, Ridgely, Sands, Smith, of Carroll, Smith, of Dorchester, Smith, of Worcester, Sneary, Swope, Sykes, Todd, Turner, Valliant, Wilmer-51. Nays-Messrs. Abbott, Audoun, Brooks, Cushing, Dellinger, Ecker, Hopkins, Keefer, Kennard, Murray, Parker, Pugh, Russell, Schley, Schlosser, Stirling, Stockbridge, Thomas, Wickard, Wooden—20. When their names were called, Mr. AUDOUN said: I shall vote against every proposition looking to placing in the organic law of this State anything which tends towards slavery of any kind. There is sufficient law now upon the statute books to provide for negro apprenticeship. I voted against open unvarnished slavery; I now vote against slavery whitewashed. I vote "no." Mr. ECKER said: As I have not had an opportunity to speak on this question during its discussion before the house, I would take this opportunity to explain my vote. When the proposition of my friend from Caroline (Mr. Todd) was introduced, I was favorably impressed with it, and was inclined to vote for it, but on examination I find in the Code all laws necessary in the case And after hearing a number of speeches from gentle Mr. SCHLEY said: I have no objection to the proposition as it stands; but deeming it superfluous, I vote "no." The first branch of the section was accordingly adopted. The question recurring upon the second clause of the amendment, to wit: "and in all cases the preference shall be given to their former masters, when in the judgment of said courts they are suitable persons to have charge of them." Mr. PUGH demanded the yeas and nays, and they were ordered. The question being taken, the result was yeas 45, nays 27-as follows: Yeas-Messrs. Goldsborough, President; Annan, Belt, Billingsley, Blackiston, Bond, Briscoe, Chambers, Crawford, Cunningham, Dent, Duvall, Edelen, Galloway, Henkle, Hodson, Hoffman, Hollyday, Horsey, King, Lansdale, Larsh, Lee, Markey, McComas, Mitchell, Miller, Morgan, Mullikin, Negley, Nyman, Parran, Peter, Purnell, Ridgely, Smith, of Carroll, Smith, of Dorchester, Smith, of Worcester, Sneary, Swope, Sykes, Todd, Turner, Valliant, Wilmer-45. Nays-Messrs. Abbott, Audoun, Brooks, Cushing, Daniel, Davis, of Washington, Dellinger, Ecker, Farrow, Greene, Hebb, Hopkins, Hopper, Keefer, Kennard, Murray, Parker, Pugh, Russell, Sands, Schley, Schlosser, Stirling, Stockbridge, Thomas, Wickard, Wooden-27. When their names were called, Mr. HEBB said: I prefer leaving it to the discretion of the courts, and I vote "no." Mr. NEGLEY said: Seeing no reason why the former owner of the indentured negro should not have the benefit of his services, if in the opinion of the orphans' court he is a suitable person to have them, I shall certainly vote "aye." |
