Port Tobacco times, and Charles County advertiser. (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1845-1898, 1885-02-13
I1ortU obacco O ines
PORT TOBACCO:
Friday Morning. February Is, 1885.

Friday Morning. February Is, 1885.
Is the Wrong Without Remedy!
Mr.. Stansburv Bovce, replying to the rec
ommendation of the Port Tobacco Times that
the next Legislature of Maryland shall pass
bill asking Congress to remuner.te the owners.
of slaves for the loss OF their property. argues
that the institution Of slavery being in conflict
with that provision Of the Declaration Of indie
pendence which held that all men were created
equal and endowed with certain inalienaele
rights, among them being life, liberty. and the
pursuit of happiness the llbera ted slaves might
as Justly bring forward claim against their
former owners for the value of their services as
slaves. The theory Of human equslitv set forth
in the Declaration of independence says Mr..
Boyce, "has been endorsed by every successive
State which has been admitted into the Union,
and secures to all mes. irrespective Of race,
creed or condition, the Creators beati6ed gift
of liberty in its widest sense-spiritual, tempo
raj. physical and political. The delinquency Of
the government these many years in framing
laws derogatory to the principles of the coust-
tuition for the enslavement of one portion Of
the people of the country, depriving them Of
the essentials enunciated in the declaration, |
hold to be unjust 1t was established upon the
basis of the power ef the strong 10 Cypress the
weak, and involved the same disregard Of hu-
man rights which caused the revolt of the Amer
lean colonies from England's rule. Is it not
apparent" asks Mr.. Boyce, "that the late slaves
have just such claim, (as that put forth by
their former owners for compensation, not
only against their immediate former owners,
but also against the United States, and that
they could legally recover damages for unlawful
deprivation Of liberty and services rendered p
In regard to the question Of compensation OF
owners for the loss of slaves, it is enough to
say that the fourteenth amendment of the Z nj
ted States constitution absolute prohibits either
State or the United States from assuming ITO
pay any claim for the loss or emancipation OF
any slave" and declares that all such ''claims
shall be illegal and void In regard to the
counter claim for compensation to former slaves
for services, the difficulties are quite as formi-
midable, as the statute Of limitations would
protect private persons, even if the basis OF the
claim were admitted by legal one, while
neither individual States nor the United States
can be sued without their own conssnt.-EDs.
Baltimore Sun Of Saturday.
AS far as the contention of Mr.. STAINS
bury Boyce is concerned, it is manifestly
and singularly absurd and needs no COM
ment. We have never before heard Of an
attempt to give the Declaration of indie
pendence the force of an organic law, and
even if that were conceded, it would be
difficult to give that instrument the inter
probation he indicates, since it is known
that the majority of the signers of the De-
claratien were themselves owners Of slaves,
and many OF them confined to be such to
the end of their lives and transmitted such
property to their descendants. 1t is well
known by all persons of even mediocre in
'osaation, that property in slaves was re-
cognfasd and guaranteed by the Federal
constitution, the fundamental law Of the
Republic, and that the fugitive slave laws
enacted by Congress~ were ex pre.sly author
lied by the constitu'ion.~This feature of
the Federal constitution was net annulled
or modified until the adoption of tn 18th
amendment in 1865, and was in full fore,
at the time of the emancipation of the
slaves in Maryland. There is not, there
fore, any need of the invocation of the sta
tute of limitation TO bar any such claimt
as Mr.. Stansbury Boyce has conjured up
see fit to carry the promise contained in
the resolution of Congress of April 1862
to which we have heretofore referred, and
'e1tend pecuniary aid to compensate for
the inconvenience public and private"
which would result from the abolition of
slavery in any State that elected to do 30,
we would not be averse to the emancipat-
ed slaves sharing, directly or indirectly,
such pecuniary aid, and in former article
SO suggested.
With regard to the editorial suggestion
of the Sun, that upon its face would ap-
pear to have graver and more material
bearing upon the question. Section Of
the 14th amendment to the Federal con-
stitution adopted in 1865, is as follows:
''SEcT1oN 4. The validity of the public debt
of the U nited States. authorized by law includ-
ing debts incurred for payment of pension: and
bounties for services in SURPRISING instruction
or rebellion. shall not be questioned. But
neither the United States nor any State shall
assume or pay any debt, or obligation incurred
w dtd " WsUTFeCttOn OF TeOetuOn against Inc
United States, or ony cl1im for the loss or en,dn-
cipation of any SLAVE; but all such debts. obi
cations and claims shall be held illegal and
void''
The judicious observer, who desires to
fairly consider, and not hastily PREJUDICE
this question of so much moment to many
of the people of this State will not lose
sight of the fact that this article of amend
ment was adopted tuo gears prior to the
adoption Of the constitution of Maryland of
1867, and must have been fully known to
the many able lawyers who were number
ed among the exceptionally intelligen,
body that framed that instrument, and in
it declared that slavery in this State had
been abolished "by the policy and author
iiy of the United States" and that "cor,
pensation in consideration thereof is due
from the United States" 1t would be
absurd to assume that the trainers of the
Maryland constitution were ignorant OF
this clause of the Federal constitution, and
the only fair presumption is that they in
terpreted it to have reference only to such
claims arising in the seeded States that
were ''in instruction or rebellion against
the United States"
The Supreme Court of the United States
has never, that we are aware of, been call
ed upon to interpret this clause of the 14th
amendment, and probably never will be,
unless the matter is presented to the Fed
eral government as required by the consti-
tuition Of Maryland /; but the more thought
full and better informed of lawyers are in
clined to give 1t the Interpretation we
have stated above.