^Ss'^&^J^'i^itSLh,i"'Kt->''"'t'^-'''^^^ ,[>"J''j ''V"yj""j'Lf.f""" ■''''' '■,' 
 
 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 DDDDSinSVl 
 

 ■J>^. 
 
 y ./ ^^^. ^!^B?,* >" ""^ . '•':^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 ,^^'"-^ 
 
 
 
 
 •••, "^o 
 
 .'- '^^0^ ic 
 
 
 °.. • ^- • *o' V-^- ,y 'o.. •^' •* .0 ■ 
 
 
 y >. cT ^^-ffa^-. '^^ .v^ »: 
 
 
 
 . -t. 
 
 

 "•^^o^" :'. 
 
 V .-t*"- 
 
 
 
 
 
 •^a>«i'^ 
 
 .^'"^ 
 
 
 
 
 
THE 
 
 MEMORIAL 
 
 OP 
 
 REVERD7 J0HN80IT 
 
 TO THE 
 
 LEGISLATURE OF MARYLAND, 
 
 Praying indertmity for the destruction of his property in 
 the City of Baltimore, by a Mob, in Jiugust i835. 
 

To the Honorable 
 
 The General Assembly of Alaryland, 
 
 The memorial of Reverdy Johnson, of the city of Bal- 
 timore, respectfully showeth unto your honorable body, 
 that in August last, his dwelling house, furniture and li- 
 brary, situated in that city and constituting with incon- 
 siderable exceptions all the properly he had been able to 
 accumulate after many years of assiduous professional 
 labor, was, during the absence of himself and family, 
 openly and with the knowledge of the whole city, and 
 after they had had several days prior notice of the design, 
 suffered to be destroyed by a lawless and savage mob, 
 comparatively few in numbers, and easily to have been 
 suppressed. For weeks preceding, violent and inflamma- 
 tory communications, urging to this and other outrages 
 ef a similar character, had been circulated with unex- 
 ampled industry through the city and to the knowledge 
 ol its civil authorities, and for four days prior to the de- 
 struction of the property of your Memorialist, still more 
 open and decided indications demonstrated that that 
 event, and the other scenes which so deeply wounded 
 the fair fame of the city and brought sorrow to evevy 
 well wisher of its prosperity, were almost sure to take 
 place, unless promptly restrained by the civil power. 
 
 But the warnings were in vain. Instead of efficient and 
 energetic measures that would have frowned down all 
 opposition to the laws; instead of a timely and effective 
 exercise of the powei s with which the chai ter of the city 
 and the general laws invested them, the city authorities 
 apparently, and no doubt honestly incredulous that such 
 barbarous violences could really be contemplated, re- 
 sorted to means grossly inadequate to the exigency, and 
 actually calculated as the event proved, rather to en- 
 courage than to subdue the rioters. The result is now 
 matter of history, and the only consolation it leaves to 
 her citizens is that it has taught them a lesson which it is 
 confidently believed will cause them in all time to come 
 effectually to protect their home from the disturbance 
 disgrace and ruin, of like scenes of savage violence and 
 outrage. 
 
 That your Memoiialist is correct in stating that these 
 outrages could readily have i)een avoided by proper and 
 
reasonable energy on the part of the authorities of the 
 city, was not only demonstrated on the Monday succeed- 
 ing the destruction of his property, when the mob in the 
 pride of victory and almost in the absolute and uncon- 
 trolled possession of the town and threatening indiscri- 
 minate pillage, were instantaneously suppressed by the 
 decided and patriotic stand assumed by General Smith 
 and those who united with him, but was also abundantly 
 shown by what a few men, unarmed at the commencement 
 were able to accomplish in the defence of the property of 
 your Memorialist, on the Saturday night preceding. No 
 one acquainted with the history of that night does or can 
 doubt, that had those gallant and excellent citizens been 
 reasonably supported, instead of being virtually abandon- 
 ed by the civil power, Baltimore would never have had 
 to deplore the occurrences to which this memorial re- 
 fers. 
 
 Her only monuments would then have been testimo- 
 nials of the enterprise, patriotism and gratitude of her 
 citizens, teaching lessons of civil and military honor, 
 untarnished by others, evidencing the temporary reign of 
 anarchy, the dearest rights of her citizens violated, her 
 laws trampled upon, and deeds perpetrated, over which 
 even savages might have mourned. 
 
 But the events have occurred, and sad as they are, 
 your Memorialist is satisfied, that they will soon be for- 
 gotteH in the prosperity which the general intelligence, 
 virtue and industry of her people, is certain to produce. 
 In every community of a dense population, there will 
 always be materials upon which the designing and wick- 
 ed may sometimes operate to excite to deeds of violence, 
 if there is not a certainty that the laws will be executed 
 at all hazards, and the Authors and the instruments of 
 their violation, brought to sudden and exemplary pun- 
 ishment. Such is the experience of our time, and such 
 will it ever be, until man changes his nature. A feeble 
 police is sure to invite to deeds of violence, whilst a strong 
 and energetic one is as certain to prevent them. 
 
 The scenes which he has mentioned and the manner 
 in which he has spoken of them, your Memorialist deem- 
 ed called for by the purpose of his application. He is 
 not to,be understood as intimating that such things can 
 again occur in Ballimore. So far from entertaining any 
 such apprehension, he is satisfied that the first daring 
 
m'Screant who is found to raise his arm to disturb her 
 tranquility and subvert the supremacy of the laws, will 
 at once be made an object of their severest penalties. 
 
 His pioperty however, has been destroyed by vio- 
 lence, which it was in the power of his fellow citizens 
 or of their constituted authorities to have prevented. Is 
 he, can he be without redress? If he is, he is not only 
 sadly ignorant of the Constitution of his State, and that 
 of every free State in the civilized world, but he is also 
 greatly mistaken in the temper and spirit of justice of 
 the people of Maryland. Before proceeding to state to 
 your honorable body, the grounds upon which he pre- 
 dicates his application, he begs permission to refer for a 
 moment to the pretext for the outrage of which he com- 
 plains — About two years preceding the events in question, 
 your memorialist with twelve others, became a Director, 
 at the instance of its President, of the Bank of Maryland, a 
 Banking Institution, situated in Baltimore. — It is not his 
 purpose in this place, to trouble your honorable body 
 with a history of his actual participation in the manage- 
 ment of that Institution, nor to explain to you how impossi- 
 ble it was in consequence of the engrossing nature of his 
 professional duties, that he could have been, even had he 
 been so disposed, more than nominally concerned in it. 
 It is no doubt known to you, that he has already upon 
 two occasions, fully disclosed to the public, his con- 
 nexion with the Bank, and as far as he was able, the true 
 causes of its unparalleled insolvency. All that he means 
 now to say upon the subject, is, that he ardently desires 
 if your honorable body approves of it, that you at once 
 institute by a committee of your own, or in any other 
 mode you may sanction, the most searching enquiry 
 into the causes of the failure of that Institution and espe- 
 cially in relation to his connexion with it, and that if it 
 results in his being found in one single particular to 
 have wronged it of a dollar, or to have been knowingly 
 privy to any such wrong on the part of any one else, he 
 will not only withdraw the present memorial, but will 
 at once convey the small remnant of property left to 
 him, and pledge the subsequent earnings of his life, to 
 make the loss good. 
 
 Your Memorialist served for seven years in one of the 
 branches of your honorable body, has been for upwards 
 of twenty years engaged in a professional practice unu- 
 
6 
 
 sually extensive in his own district and in all the higher 
 Courts of the State, and he proudly relies as ample evi- 
 dence that he is incajjable of any moral wrong, on the 
 continuing esteem of those who have had the best oppor- 
 tunities of observing his public and professional con- 
 duct. Amongst them it is his highest gratification to enu- 
 merate many members of your honorable body. He may 
 possibly deceive himself, but he has yet to learn that the 
 bitter and malicious assaults which have been recently 
 made upon his reputation, have lost him the regard of a 
 single judge to whom lie was known, or of an individual 
 member of his profession, having the slightest preten- 
 sions to moral and professional character and standing. 
 A recent trial in the County Court of Harford, as is 
 known at least to one of the delegation from that eounty, 
 if not to all, led to the fullest investigation of the con- 
 duct of your Memorialist concerning the Bank, and re- 
 sulted in a letter voluntarily tendered by the jury who 
 tried the cause, denouncing the attacks upon him as li- 
 bellous, and wholly exempting him from all censure. In 
 this testimonial the judges who presided over the trial 
 did not join, from (as your Memorialist knows) motives 
 not at all inconsistent with an entire concurrence in opi- 
 fiion with the jury, a:ui he is satisfied that if called upon 
 by your honorable body, should you deem the enquiry 
 at all material, they will unanimously confirm in every 
 particular, the judgment of the jury. 
 
 For the introduction of this topic, should you be of 
 opinion that it is uncalled for by the present applica- 
 tion, your Memorialist hopes to be excused. The lively 
 sense which every man of honor feels at imputations 
 upon his integrity, and the utter insignificance in which 
 he holds all other possessions in comparison with his 
 good name, will, he is assured, be deemed an ample 
 apology for soliciting the investigation. 
 
 Should it, however, be deemed unnecessary, he 
 will confidently await other opportunities, w^hich must 
 soon present themselves, of still further demonstrating 
 his innocence in all that relates to the Bank of Maryland. 
 
 For the loss of his property 3'our Memorialist is forced 
 to apply to your honorable body for redress. The law 
 as it now stands, gives no suflicient remedy by any re- 
 sort to the courts of justice for relief. His reliance 
 must therefore, be upon the justice of the Legislature, 
 
and it is a reliance which he has ever most confidently 
 entertained. 
 
 If the Constitution ot" our Slate was silent upon the 
 subject, the general principles of freedom lying at the 
 foundation of ev.^ry free government, would secure 
 him the protection he seeks. The duty of allegiance 
 necessarily involves the correspondent obligation of pro- 
 tection. 
 
 If the property of the citizen is made to contribute to 
 the support of the Government, if his personal services 
 can be exacted in its administration and defence, if all his 
 private and natural rights are held subordinate to his so- 
 cial duties, he has a clear right to expect in return, that 
 his remaining privileges of person and of property, 
 will be adequately secured, as far, at least, as depends 
 upon a reasonable and ordinary exercise of the powers 
 of the Government. 
 
 There may be injuries arising from sudden and over- 
 whelming calamities, or from secret theft, fraud or vio- 
 lence, for which society may not be liable, beeause by no 
 reasonable diligence nor practical legislation, can they 
 be avoided, but its moral responsibility, which with so- 
 vereignty is ever esteemed the highest responsibility, to 
 redress the wrongs of the citizen in person or in proper- 
 ty, occurring from misgovernment or from the negligent 
 and defective exercise of the powers with which govern- 
 ment is clothed, is, your Memorialist believes, a propo- 
 sition sustained by the clearest principles of reason, and 
 approved by every political writer of reputation, since 
 man enjoyed political freedom. 
 
 But in Maryland, the citizen is not left to rely upon any 
 such general principle, however clear and well settled 
 it may be. The organic law of the state, guarantees the 
 protection to him If it does, there can exist no doubt 
 of his title to redress. Whatever the declaration of 
 rights undertakes to secure, it is the bounden duty of 
 the government effectually to secure. 
 
 It would be an idle mockery to proclaim the right un- 
 less its enjoyment is practically provided for. What 
 avails it that he is told that his liberty and his property 
 are to be his, unless adjudged forfeited by the sentence 
 of his peers, or the law of the land. — What avails it 
 that he is told that he is not to be "deprived of his free- 
 hold liberties or privileges" — that he is not to be "de« 
 
8 
 
 prived of his life, liberty or property, but by the judg- 
 ment of his peers or by the law of the land,"* if without 
 even the forin of a trial, if not only without law, but 
 against all law human and divine, he may be deprived 
 of every thing he possesses, by a deluded, or hired vio- 
 lence, at any moment, when from any cause, no matter 
 what, he may become an object of public prejudice or of 
 private malice. If in such moments the civil power may 
 slumber without responsibility, if the particular com- 
 munity in which the oufra2;e may be perpetrated, may 
 look on silent spectators of the enormity, and be safe from 
 all liability, the boasted charter of the people's freedom, 
 is a mere collection of unmeaning sentences, the pro- 
 tection it professes to guarantee to the individual citizen, 
 is but a name, it holds but the word of promise to the ear 
 and breaks it ^o the hope. Let it not be said in such cases, 
 that the individual is entitled to redress from the immedi- 
 ate authors of his injuries. It is but to trifle with his misfor- 
 tunes. Who were they for the most part, if not exclu- 
 sively in the particular instance? who will they ever be? 
 The very dregs and refuse of society. Bankrupts in 
 fortune and in fame, actuated by an inherent lust of 
 plunder, ministering to the vindictive passions of concea- 
 led employers, or hoping to rise to comparative import- 
 ance in moments of public agitation, from the obscurity 
 to which their worthlessness would otherwise forever 
 consign them. To expect indemnity at such hands is as 
 idle as to search for striking instances of virtue amongst 
 the inmates of a penitentiary. From the government 
 alone can justice be obtained. 
 
 Is there any doubt of their power to render it in the 
 present instance. 
 
 Your Memorialist in conclusion, begs leave respect- 
 fully to add a few remarks upon this point. 
 
 Assuming as true, what he supposes no one will be 
 found to deny, that the citizen has a clear right to be pro- 
 
 *See the 21st article of the Declaration of Rights — 
 "That no man ought to be taken or imprisoned, or dis- 
 seized of his freehold liberties, or privileges, or outlaw- 
 ed or exiled; or in any vianner destroyed, or deprived of 
 his life, or property, but by the judgment of his peers or 
 by the law of the land." 
 
9 
 
 tected against all injuries which the government can 
 with facility prevent — the breach of duty on the part of 
 the latte.i, if the city authoiities constitute a branch of 
 it, in the case made by this memorial, is equally mani- 
 fest. The peace of the city could have been preserved 
 by fifty armed uen. assembled in proper time — any de- 
 cided manifestation of a determination to uphold the laws 
 would have driven the rioters to their hiding places. 
 Your iMf-morialist ventures to assert that not an intelli- 
 gent and honest citizen of the place, can be found to 
 question this declaration. Are not the authorities then, 
 of Baltimore, a branch of tiie government of the State.^ 
 and indeed, constituted for the very purpose amongst 
 others, of enabling the State the better to protect that 
 particular portion of her population? But one answer 
 can be given to this enquiry. Within the spheie of his 
 jurisdiction, and the limits of his powers, the Mayor of 
 the City is as much the Executive Oificer of the State, 
 as is the Governor of the State, and the same may be said 
 of all the other municipal officers of the corporation. 
 The whole of them although holding their appointments 
 immediately under the charter of the city, are but the 
 agents of the government. She is as much bound to 
 defend the citizen from the abuse or misuse of their du- 
 tiofi as to defend him from the wrongful acts of any other 
 branch of her municipal power. In what manner, when 
 loss ensues to an individual from such causes, he is to be 
 indemnified, it is for the Legislature, in the absence of 
 any existing general law to provide. The obligation to 
 protect necessarily assumes the obligation to ledress. To 
 refuse the latter, would be not only practically to en- 
 feeble the former, but to enhance the wrong of its vio- 
 lation. No government can be perfect in which the right 
 to both is not secured to the citizen, and no government 
 it is confidently asserted, can be found in these United 
 States, in which the right is not effectually secured, (s 
 there any limitation of either obligation in the Constitu- 
 tion of Maryland? That there is none upon the duty of 
 protection, will readily, he supposes, be conceded. Pro- 
 tection through deiaultofthe government failing,is there 
 any upon the duty to indemnify. In principle no such 
 limitation should exist. In fact, does any exist? If it does, 
 it can only be by reason of some clear, positive and un- 
 equivocal limitation in the Constitution or Declaration 
 o 
 
10 
 
 of Rights — Unless it is contained there it can be found 
 no where. Is it contained there? The unlimited power 
 of taxation, for all the purposes of the government is in- 
 vested in the Legislature. Whatever burthens the Con- 
 stitution imposes, or the necessities of the government 
 demand, requiring the public money orlhe public credit 
 may. through this power, be provided for. Whatever 
 appropriation of either, the Legislature may find, will be 
 .advantageous to tiie .State, or reiiound to "the good go- 
 vernment and benefit of the community," tliey are au- 
 thorised to make without resti iction. They have not 
 only the unlimited power over the appropriation but, un- 
 der their responsibility to the peoj)le, they are the ex- 
 clusive judges of the objects of the appropriation. — 
 Amongst hundreds of instances which will readily oc- 
 cur to your honorable body, illusttative of this proposi- 
 tion, your xMemorialist contents himself with mention- 
 ing appropriations for the support of education, for the 
 improvement and deepening of rivers, for rail roads and 
 canals, for the colonization of free people of color, for 
 pensions to soldiers, for testimonials of gratitude andes- 
 teem, lor the gallantly and patriotism of her native sons. 
 These all demonstrate the unlimited nature of your con- 
 trol over the funds and means of the people, and its libe- 
 ral and constant exercise upon all occasions where ai> 
 enlightened wisdom teaches that it is called for by any 
 of the ends and obligations of a free and good govern- 
 ment. What stronger, what more commanding appeal 
 can be presented for its execution, than that of the citi- 
 zen whose property has been wrested from him through 
 the supinenesand incompetency of the agents of the go- 
 vernment, and in the presence of thousands of his fel- 
 low corporators. 
 
 If the genius of good government does not invoke, in 
 such a case, complete indemnity, a residence under the 
 reign of a Czar of Russia, is a thousand times to be pre- 
 ferred to a residence in Baltimore — Any government na 
 matter how despotic, is better than anarchy — Any single 
 tyrant, no matter how wicked., is better than the tyranny 
 of a irob. Your Memorialist has, however, an abiding 
 confidence ihatthe virtue and intelligence of his fellow- 
 citizens there, as well as throughout the State, will en- 
 tertain but one opinion upon the subject — that the honor 
 and welfare of the city, and the honor and duty of the 
 State, alike demand the indemnity. Before your honor- 
 
11 
 
 able body, he has no fears but that (he enlightened and 
 liberal spirit which governs all your deliberations, will 
 amply secure hun the full measure of justice which he 
 S9ek.s at your hands. The taxing power being subject 
 to no restriction incompatible with the authority to grant 
 the relief asked for, youi Memorialist proceeds to 
 show that no such restriction exists in any of the express 
 limitations upon your powers. 
 
 The difference between the State Governments and that 
 of the United States in questions of this description, is 
 well understood. 
 
 In construing the Constitution of the United States in 
 order to ascertain the power of the General Government 
 on any particular subject, you examine it to see if the au- 
 thority is granted, and not to see if it is denied. It pos- 
 sesses no jurisdiction which is not expressly bestowed, 
 or which is not by necessary implication involved in 
 what is expressly bestowed. It is exclusively a govern- 
 ment of delegated powers. This would have been abun- 
 dantly manifest from the very nature of its existence, 
 but it is so described in the Constitution itself — the pow- 
 ers not delegated are expressly reserved to the States or 
 the people. 
 
 A different and directly reverse rule of construction 
 prevails in the State Governments. You look at their 
 Constitutions, not to find whether the disputed power is 
 granted, but whether it is prohibited. Their legisla- 
 tive, executive and judicial departments, within their 
 respective limits, are adequate to the attainment ot every 
 end of good government They possess not so much 
 delegated as inherent powers — As soon as constituted, and 
 by mere force of tliat Constitution, they become seve- 
 rally endowed with every legislative, executive and ju- 
 dicial function which is not inconsistent with the spirit 
 of our Institutions, and these they in all cases possess, 
 except so far as they may be restrained by positive limi- 
 tation. These principles will be iouiid sustained by a uni 
 form course of judicial construction, by an equaliy uni- 
 form approbation on the part of the other branches of the 
 two gouernments, and by the constant sanction of the 
 people. 
 
 In every ca*, therefore, of a contested power in a 
 State Government, the first enquiry is, is it a power fit 
 in itself, naturally belonging to a good and free govern- 
 ment, and to either of the branches, legislative, execu- 
 
12 
 
 tive and judicial, into which it may be divided. This 
 being aFcertained, the second (juestion is, not whether 
 the particular Constitution in terras invests it in the ap- 
 propriate branch; but whether it expressly repudiates 
 it; and if not, tlie third and only remaining enquiry is, 
 does the Constitution of th« United States prohibit it. 
 To apply these tests to the authority involved in this me- 
 morial. 
 
 First — Is the power a propo^r and wholesome one. Is 
 it the attribute of a good and free government. Is the 
 citizen safe under any government in which it does not 
 exist. These questions turnish their own answer. But 
 one opinion can possibly be entertained npon them. — 
 They contain a proposition which no one can deny, and 
 which, therefore, need not be proved — where such a 
 power is not found, the safety and security of the citi- 
 zen in person and in property, exists but upon a frail and 
 insecure tenure. He has but barely improved the pro- 
 tection which a state of nature would have furnished 
 him. He lives under a system which is any thing else 
 than govarnraent has been described to be 'a contrivance 
 of human wisdom to provide for human wants." 
 
 Second and third — The power being a legitimate one, 
 is it expressly denied in the case here [)resented, either 
 by the Conititution of Maryland or of the United States.^ 
 These questions may be well considered together. It 
 has been seen that no such negation is to be found in the 
 taxing power. Is it to be seen elsewhere. The only 
 two grounds upon which your Memorialist has ever 
 heard it questioned, are first, that its exercise would be 
 ex post facto legislation, and therefore, within the re- 
 striction of the 15th article of the declaration of rights, 
 and secondly, that it would be a violation of a part of the 
 1st clause of the lOth section, 1st art of the Constitution 
 of the United States, which, amongst other things, de- 
 claaes that no State shall "pass any ex post facto law, 
 or law imposing the obligations of contracts.'' A word 
 or two upon each objection. The prohibition of ex post 
 facto laws, is common to both constitutions. What then 
 as there used is an eccpost facto \3lw} Whatever doubts 
 in relation to this question might well bftve been origin- 
 ally entertained, it is not now open to controversy. To 
 adopt the language of Mr. Justice Story, in his commen- 
 taries on the Constitution of the United States. "The 
 
13 
 
 current of public opinion and authority has been so ge- 
 neially one way as (o the meaning of this phrase in the 
 State Constitutions, as well as in that of the United States, 
 evei since their adoption, that it is difficult to feel that 
 it is now an open question. The general inlerpretatitn 
 has been, and ?s, that the phrase applies to acts of a criminal 
 nature only"' — S vol, p. 212. And indeed, it will be seen 
 by the article in our declaration of rights, that this is 
 the very interpretation there given of the phrase. Its 
 words are "that retrospective laws punishing facts com- 
 mitted before the existence of such laws, and by them 
 only Jec/arcrf cr??7iiaa/, are oppressive, uujust and incom- 
 patible with liberty, Wherefore, no ex post facto law 
 ought to be made." Under such a restriction it is im- 
 possible to bring the law now solicited. No personal 
 punishment of any individual is proposed. An appropri- 
 ation of the money of the whole, a species of legislation 
 of every days occurrence, alone is asked to indemnify 
 an individual injury which the whole were bound to have 
 prevented, and which it is the chief obJ3ct of government 
 to prevent. In the second place, if in the manner of ac- 
 complishing it, the particular city is made to bear the 
 burthen, it is because justice requires that it should 
 more peculiarly fall upon those who have been especial- 
 ly to blame. Their own immediate agents and them- 
 selves could have avoided the injury, if their powers had 
 been reasonably exerted, and being able to do it, it was 
 their duty to have done it. Let me mention a few in- 
 stances as conclusive of this proposition. Baltimore 
 county has a joint interest with the city, in the court 
 house and jail. Suppose the city from design, from su- 
 pineness, from timidity, sufTer them to be lawlessly 
 razed to the ground by an mfuriated mob. They must 
 be rebuilt — should the county be saddled with a share 
 of the expense, or ought it not to be borne exclusively 
 by the city. The State has property there of great value. 
 She has a large interest in some of the Banks, in rail 
 roads, in tobacco inspeciions, &c. Suppose these, or 
 any of them to be destroyed by lawless violence, which 
 reasonable diligence on the part of the city, could have 
 frustrated, ought not tiie loss to be made good by the city. 
 Thousands of dollars of individual property belonging 
 to citizensof the Stare, are in her inspection houses,and 
 share the fate of the public property, are these individ- 
 
14 
 
 uals not to be indemnified, and <s it unjust to fix the in- 
 demnity upon the city. Hundreds of thousands are 
 there on consignment, belonging to the planter, the far- 
 mer, the fishrrman, the manufacturer, the foreign mer- 
 chant — it falls a Eacritice to the love of plunder of the 
 mob — ought not the city to make good the loss? — should 
 the proprietors suffer (rom iho want of energy or faith- 
 faithlessness of the authorities, or the apathy, or pusil- 
 lanimity of the citizens. Should the State at large pay 
 the penalty of the city's default. Your Memorialist be- 
 lieves it impossible to give a n^^gative answer to these en- 
 quiries — and if it is, the objection he is contesting is re- 
 moved. 
 
 In every case of this nature, the action of the Legis- 
 nature, it is true, is in fact, retrospective. It takes place 
 after the enquiry, which calls (or it occurs, and it is hard 
 only because without it the injury is remidiless. But 
 every law appropriating the funds or credit of the State, 
 in the instances befoie alluded to and in almost all 
 others, is obnoxious to the same objection. There is no 
 law providing in advance for the support and comfort of 
 the soldier who bleeds in his country's defence — the ap- 
 propriation is made after the wound is received. There 
 is no law promising in anticipation monuments to her sons 
 tor deeds of gallantry & patriotic daring, testimonials of a 
 nation's gratitude and incentives to acts of future noble- 
 ness — they are established after the services are rendered. 
 There is no law entitling corporations for works of pub- 
 lic improvement, to aid Irom the public Treasury — it is 
 bestowed after their necessities require it, because it 
 serves to promote the general welfare and subse-rve the 
 purposes of good government. The Legislation which 
 is of annual occurience, curing conveyances defect- 
 ively executed or recorded, granting stays of execution 
 upon judicial proceedings, chanffing the period of limi- 
 tations upon suits or contracts, repealing former excep- 
 tions in favour of particular classes of cieditors, and in 
 a multitudeof other instances, with which the statute books 
 of every State in the Union abound, is in one sense ex 
 post facto, it is retrospective, but it is not therefore un- 
 constitutional, lu some of these cases, it has never been 
 questioned, and in the others, when questioned, it has 
 not only been approved oy the State courts, but by the 
 Supreme Court of the United States. See inter alia, 
 
15 
 
 Satterlee vs. Matthevvson,2 Peters, Sup R. 380, Wilkin' 
 son V Leland, 2 Peteis Sup R. 627. 
 
 If the limits proper to this memorial would allow it, 
 your memorialist could make the argument of this ques- 
 tion, if possible, still more conclusive. He is advised, 
 however, that it becomes him to bring it to a close. 
 
 Secondly. Would the measure pioposed impair the 
 obligation cf a contract, and therefore, fall within the 
 prohibition of ihe Constitution of the United States. 
 Your Memorialist deceives himself if it is a diffificult 
 nialt'T to establish the futility of this objection. 
 
 Ttie only contracts of any description which the case 
 can be possibly supposed to involve, is that between 
 your memorialist as a citizen oi Ballin)ore and the peo- 
 ple of Baltimore, growing out of their common charac- 
 ter of corporators of the same municipal corporation, 
 that between himself as a citizen of Maryland, and the 
 people of Maryland growing out of the constitution of 
 the state, and that between the people of Baltimore and 
 the state, growing out of the charter of the city, under 
 a grant from the state. Will all or either of these con- 
 tracts be violated by the njeasure in question? Your 
 memorialist assumes that he has already demonstrated 
 that his rights as a citizen of the state under the consti- 
 tution of the state gave him a dear title to protection 
 fron^ the injury for which he seeks redress. Is it not 
 equally manifest that he had the same claim to protection 
 as a citizen of Baltimoie under the charter of the city, 
 from the constituted authorities of the city and his fel- 
 low corporators. The charter is a municipal incorpora- 
 tion, providing for the exercise of important powers, 
 legislative and executive, amply adequate to preserve 
 the peace of the town, and protect the citizen from 
 known and open violations upon his rights of person 
 and of property. As one of the corporators he is called 
 upon and bound to contribute his quota of the expense 
 of the incorporation and to yield obedience to all the 
 ordinances, which it may from time to time enact in the 
 exercise of its legitimate powers. It is but an '■Hmperium 
 5m6 imperio^^ a government within a government, embra- 
 cing the correlative obligations of allegiance and protec- 
 tion and within the sphere of its jurisdiction must there- 
 fore be responsible, at leapt morally, to every indivi- 
 dual corporator for the faithful exercise of its acknow- 
 
16 
 
 ledp;ed authority. If by an act avowedly official, the 
 authorities of the city had expressly directed the des- 
 truction of the property of your inemorialist — if each 
 individual citizen had joined in the perpetration of the 
 outrage your memorialiis supposes that no one would be 
 found to deny that he would have a clear claim to in- 
 demnity from the city itself, which ought to be enforced; 
 and yet upon what j)rinciple would the right depend — 
 upon the abuse of its corpojate powers — upon the viola- 
 tion of corporate duties — upon the breach of corporate 
 rights. — Is there any distinction betwf^en the cases sup- 
 posed, and that which occujred? On the contrary, are 
 they not in [)rinciple identical? The outrage complained 
 of, the corporate powers were abundantly sufficient to 
 prevent, the corporate duties of his Fellow Citizens, 
 commanded them to prevent and it was a plain, manifest and 
 almost unparalled violation of t'le corptirate rights of youi 
 Memorialist. — No law enforcing indemnity in such a case 
 can, without an absurdity in terms, be denominated a law 
 impairing the obligation of a contract. ;It is not to impair, it 
 is to enforce its obligation — it is not to break, it is to ex- 
 act its stipulations — it is not to alter, to diminish or to 
 enlarge its provisions, it is to see them fully, fairly and hon- 
 estly performed. In the last place would such a law violate 
 the contract between the State and the City, existing in the 
 grant and acceptance of its Chartei ? As has been here, 
 tofore shown, the Charter is a mere public municipial cor- 
 poration, an arm of the government ol the State designated 
 and mainly designed within the limits of its powers as a 
 substitute for the immediate power of the State, to preserve 
 the peace, ensure the safety and promote the ^velfarc of its 
 particular inhabitants. The Stale has a clear right to expect 
 that their delegateil powers will be fairly and reasonably 
 exercised — it is her especially duty to see that they are so 
 exercised; her responsibility as sovereign of the whole, 
 exacts it of her. Siic would be faithless to herowu trust, 
 blind to her own dutie« and obnoxious to the severest cen- 
 sure, if she knowingly suflfered them to be abused. If she 
 finds them inadequate, she may su[)ply them — If she finds 
 them mishievous, injurious to the interests of her people, 
 she may leclaim them She has an unlimited authority in the 
 exerciseof herown sovereign discretion, to "change, modify, 
 enlarge and restrain them," subject, to no other restriction 
 than that any property which the Corporation may have 
 
17 
 
 acquired,;' shall be secured for the use of those for vrhom, 
 and at whose expense, it has been acquired." 
 
 See the case of Dartmouth College, vs. Woodward 4, 
 Wheat. R. 518, 629, 630, G59, (J63, 699 to 701 and 3 
 Story, Com. 260, 261. 
 
 In the case which has happened, the authorities of the 
 city have negligenly exercised their power.s,the people of 
 the city have failed to perform their duty as citizens and 
 corporators, and an individual injury almost of the high- 
 est enormity, has been the consequence. Will a law 
 providing indemnity for the wrong, violate any obliga- 
 tion which the State owes the Corporation or its mem- 
 bers? Can any rational doubt be entertained upon the 
 question. So far from there being any contract violated 
 by such a measure, is it not on the contrary, manifest 
 that the failure to adopt it, would virtually be to violate 
 the duty of protection which the State owes the citizen^ 
 to sanction an unequalled outrage,to approve a clear abuse 
 of the powers of a municipal corporation, -to encourage 
 to deeds of violence, to bring her laws and power into 
 shameful disrepute, to subvert the plainest principles of 
 freedom, to trample upon the declaration of rights, and 
 to render the name of Maryland, heretofore, a name es- 
 teemed, beloved and admired wherever known, a bye- 
 word and reproach amongst civilized people. 
 
 Your Memorialist has no such fearful forebodings. 
 He is well assured that in the hands of the Body he ad- 
 dresses, the honor and character of the State, will be pre- 
 served in unspotted purity. — That the rights of the indi- 
 vidual citizen, are sure of substantial protection — that 
 his wrongs are certain of full and complete redress — that 
 the supremacy of the laws will be maintained — that the 
 safety of her people in every part of her dominion, will 
 be sedulously preserved, and that she will be as she has 
 ever been, the admiration of strangers, and the beloved 
 of her sons, for the enjoyment of a liberty, civil and po- 
 litical, as pure, liberal and enlightened as Heaven ever 
 vouchsafed to man. 
 
 Your Memorialist throws himself upon the indulgence 
 of your honorable body for the If^ngth of this memorial. 
 All that he has ventured to address to you, he honestly 
 deemed called for by the nature of his application It 
 is now, however, time to bring it to a termination. His 
 prayer, most respectfully presented to you,is for full and 
 
complete indeninify for the injury he has sustained. He 
 claims it as a citizen of Maryland. He invokes it as 
 secured to him by the Constitution and Declaration of 
 Rights. He asserts it as founded upon the most palpa- 
 ble principles of freedom. What is his case to day, may 
 be yours tomorrow. The rights of every individual 
 citizen have been wounded in his person. The more 
 immediate ruin has fallen upon him, but that was but 
 the accident of lawless caprice. The same fiend-like 
 barbarity, the same lust of savage violence, the same con- 
 tempt and defiance of the laws, the same abandonraent 
 of all duty, social and christian, exists, and will continue 
 to exist in the instigators and more immediate leaders of 
 scenes like these. You may next fall within the range of 
 its fury — will not the State owe you protection? If you 
 shall suffer, will it not owe you indemnity? 
 
 Your Executive has recommended Legislative pro- 
 vision to meet future cases. Are you not prepared to 
 pursue the recommendation? If you are, it is conclu- 
 sive of the question submitted by this memorial— It 
 establishes the right to indemnity— It admits the liability 
 of the government — It fixes the justice of visiting the 
 loss on ihe parties more immediately to blame— Such 
 laws have existed in England for centuries. They exist 
 on the Continent. They are necessary to the protection 
 of the citizen. They are however, but in aid of the 
 paramount responsibility of the government. That re- 
 mains. Its solemn, sacred duty of preserving the rights 
 of its people when they can be preserved, can never be 
 cancelled. That must be performed. Your Memorialist 
 has no fear that it will not be discharged in the present 
 instance. He knows the body which he addresses too 
 well not to be satisfied that in their custody, the rights 
 of an injured citizen are ever safe. That their Legis- 
 lation to preserve the laws, will know no other limits 
 than the limits of their power. Upon the question of 
 power, he could much enlarge, but he is admonished 
 that he has already trespassed too long upon your time, 
 nor can he doubt that he has established it to your entire 
 satisfaction. Should it however, be otherwise, he in 
 conclusion, prays to be heard upon it at the bar of your 
 hou,>e, by his friend and counsd Roger B.J Taney, 
 Ln] at such pciiod as may suit your convenience, and 
 
i9 
 
 in the mean time, he most respectfully submits the 
 whole subject to your care. 
 
 REVERDY JOHNSON. 
 Annapolis, February 15, 1836. 
 
W92 
 
 »?•• 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 «v_ i:?^ ^iKffi^^', "^ fx"? oV"'^=;S'^u^ - ^' 
 
 "oy 
 
 
 v-o^ 
 
 b1 
 Or 
 
 
 IT ..»•• 
 
 *bv" 
 
 'bv^ 
 
 
 
 V'^ 
 
 ^* ^ ^ • ^ W FH * AY ^^ o^ 
 
 V^' .V. 
 
 
 
 
,^'\ 
 
 
 
 
 '.* cO 
 
 
 * ^ 
 
 0* .""w^ma". ^ K