Maryland free press. [volume] (Hagerstown [Md.]) 1862-18??, 1867-02-07

'so-call d. Delegates from this County, in vot-
ing against the amendment TO the Convention
Bill, which prohibited the passage Of any law by
the Legislature providing for the payment by the
State for emancipattd slaves, we have received
the following letter from Mr.. Bishop:
AsxApoLls, Feb. 4, 1867
Efiior "Fres Press."
Dear Sir My attention has been called to
your comments upon the vote of u portion of the
Washington County Delegation, in opposition 10
what is here known as the Carmichael Amend
mcnt."
Ny reasons for voting "no," upon that pro-
position, and believe that of my colleagues,
were:
lst ! believed the provisions of the "Cal" to
be direct and Intentional violation Of the Consti-
tuition of the State.
81. deny the right of the General Assembly
to instruct convention, which it can not he
denied is Soerega, called afsdeected, rs directed
By iaw.
81. believe that Judge Carmichael enter
tanned the same opinion with regard 10 the mat
ter in common with those Whose action you are
condemning, and that he designed il us "blind,
behind which ii "a designed to conceal their true
intont, and by which they hope to miSlcad the
unwary.
Will YOU do mo and the other, $50 called
Delegates, the Justice to insert this commuaica-
ton in your next issue.
Very Truly and Respectfully yours,
j. p. BISHOP.
We are not surprised TINT Mr. Bishop and his
colleagues should begin to feel rather uneasy in
regard 10 their vote on the amendment of Mr..
Carmichael. We cheerfully insert their expla
natory or a?olugetica letter, though we are in
cliaed to think that the people will require at
their hands little clearer and more satisfactory
explanation of their course We have very few
words tn say in relation to the reasons assigned
by Mr.. Bishop for the vote of himself and col
lsagues;-iet us look at those reasons.
LIST. He voted against the amendment because
he believed the call Of The Convention to be un-
constitutional. We have always been OF the
opinion that the people had the right 10 change
their Constitution nt..any time AMI in any man
ner that suited them. and because the present
Constitution prcscrhcs a particular mode ia
which it,may be amended that does not take away
from the people their Inherent rights to abolish
or amend in any other way which the will of the
sepersign people may select. written Constitu-
tioH can no more deprive the people of their
rights to alter it at such time and in such a way
as suits themselves, than IL legislature can limit
or rss'rl.n a Contention.
And this brings lis to Mr.. Bishops second rea-
son, to which we have merely to say that nobody
ever claimed or dreamed for n moment that Mr.
Carmchael's amendment could bind the Conven-
ton when it shall have assembled, nor was it
proposed for that purpose. It was merely an as
snrance, and very strong one, publicly and
solemnly given of the sentiments of that party
who voted for the amendment In relation TO the
proprietv of compensation being made for eman-
cipated slaves.
In the third place Mr.. Bishop opposed the
amendment because he considered it q f'blnd"
by which it was intended " to mislead The un-
wary" We cannot SEQ what Impressed our
''wary" delegates $50 called" with the idra
that this amendment was intended for any other
purpose than as public expression of the opin-
ion of the majority in relation 10 the subject of
payment for slaves by the State. 1t is natural to
conclude that men say what they mean and de-
sire TO do what they SAY, unless the contrary
can be shown. Now what reason has Mr. Bishop
or his colleagues, for attrihuting other motives
to the supporters of the amendment? With
much more propriety can We consider Dir. Bish-
ops letter rs "blind to deceive the unwary +"
His vote AMI that Of his colleagues speaks for
itself, lis explanation we are willing to leave to
the people of Washington County.