Year: 1868

it loses its sacred character and becomes the


meanest of principles. And thus it is with


this cant about involuntary servitude The


opponents Of this law, in assigning this as ar


argument against it's justice. have adopted the


cry of their and country's enemies, but how
immeasuraby do they fall short of the latter's


reasoning Compare this species of labor, a.


bolished by the coherts Of tyranny and rob-


berry, with that now characterized as such by
t"No. 8" and his cnadjutors. The one was a


system of unbroken slavery. in which one


class and their posterity were to be held in


perpetual bondage by another class and theil


posterity, not for the performance of two days


labor yearly for the laborer's own good, nor


for ten years. labor, nor for twenty years la


Dor, but slavery held them from the cradle tc


the grave. And the name by which this sys-


tenn was sometimes called has been audacious-


ly applied to the equitable and general plan
of service adopted for the repair of our roads
Two days labor yearly to be performed by
rich and poor alike, for the common benefit


Of all, or the payment of two dollars in lieu


thereof. as parties may prefer, has been call
ed by the same name heretofore borne by our


old system of slavery What is intended by


this association of dissimar things into the
same name but the confounding of terms, that


what is sought to be made odious may appear
so by being linked With, what has just been


found to be SO by these ong-visaged converts?


But it cannot succeed. 1t is the same old
game that sophists and perverters have been


playing these many years and can impose


upon none but weak understandings. 1t is
intended to serve as a mighty rallying-cry,
just as the words rebel and traitors are now


made to serve the wicked purposes of tyrants.
But have no objection to this term, as a
point Of argument in the question under con-
sideration. As applied to the labor now re-
quirel upon the public roads it is weak and
harmless one and easy of disposal.


In the first place, let us inquire whether
this labor can be properly denominated in
voluntary servitude. This naturally leads to
the question how and by whom was it i'm
posed. Was it imposed upon us by others
without our consent? Wan it imposed by an
act passed by usurpers and fastened upon us
against our remonstrances, or was it secured
by virtue of a law granted by the legally
elected and qualified representatives Of the
General Assembly of Maryland, in obedience
to numerous petition therefor? Was it de-
clared a law after its final passage by this
assembly, without regard to the will of the
people; or was it submitted to them for ac-
ceptance or rejection? There is but one an
swer to these questions: Petitions were sent
up to the Legislature praying for the law
the petitions were granted, the act was paes-
ed aud placed before the people for approval.
More than two months was given them for
reflection and consultation, during which time
the question was generally and actively dis
cussed, when majority of those who felt a
sufficient interest in the matter to induce them
to attend the polls, declared in favor of it,
Did not the people then impose it upon them
selves? And was their action not voluntary?
Who forced any to the precincts, or who re-
strained any from going? They clearly then
imposed it upon themselves. And can any
act be called involuntary? This
cannot be; from which it follows that the
labor provided for by the act in question can
not be termed Involuntary servitude. And
so falls to the ground this point of his argu-
ment, upon which he lays so much stress as
being best calculated to inflame opposition.


AS though anticipating overthrow here he
next hangs an !objection upon another hook
of illegality, as unstable, however, as the last


IN support of this charge, three reasons are
advanced: One point of its illegality islodg-
ed in its submission to the people for ratifca-
ton. Another point is found in the manner
of its adoption, while the third is made to rest
upon the broad foundation of the violation of
the Constitution. "Pomonkey" bestowed a
witheriug glance upon each of these points,


but it will not be amiss to follow it up with
a blow or two. should say nothing further,
however, upon them were it not necessary to
the connection am endeavoring to maintain


In examining the first point, we are at once
struck with some of the most absurd posi-
tions ever taken A man born and reared
under republican government, whose every
power and privilege springs from the people,
is heard to complain that law is illegal be-


cause of its submission to the people for ap-
proval. After so much cant about volition
and consent, comp plaint is raised against law
and it is declared illegal because the privilege
of accepting or rejecting it was accorded the
people. The question is asked, whether the
Legislature can remit authority. What must
be inferred from this, but that the Legisla-
ture alone had power to make the law, but
that the same law became invalid by virtue
Of its submission to the people? Here. then,
we have the astounding inconsistency of a
man noisy for the overthrow. of law, as sub
versive of the rights Of the people, because
those very people had a final voice in its a.
doption.i Can absurdty be balder than this?
Who will deny that this double mode of pas
sage made it the more binding p At least,
who but those bereft of reason ? Z The whole
history of legislation cannot furnish an in
stance in which more tender and conside-
rate regard was shown for the will of the pee


pile than in the passage Of this little act. Onr
correspondent seems startled at what he calls
the "modern theory Of calling out the peo-
Pile unad vised, untutored and unqualified to
deal with the serious matters of legislation" !"
If they were tins called out, it would indeed
be a modern theory. But it is not true that
they were called out unadvised. There was
scarcely a man,if one, that was not well ac-
quainted with the provisions Of this act for
weeks previous to its ratification. And is
the qualification of the people to pass upon
measures vitally interesting to them doubted?
Has he forgotten. or does he not know that
the Constitution of Maryland was established
solely by the votes Of the people to whom it
was submitted for their decisioh? IF then
they are qualified to- choose the government
of State, or decide upon the nature and
character of great organic law for the gov
ernment of State, are they not qualified to
pass judgment upon 4 little road law for one
Of the smallest counties Of the State? This