|
|
|
gentleman, and this Convention was no place for him to
bring his private quarrels.
Mr. Gill said that, as the reading had been commenced,
it ought to be proceeded with.
Mr. Maulsby asked if the communication of this em-
ployee of the State was to go on the journal, whether the
speech of the gentleman from Anne Arundel, (Mr. Kil-
bourn, ) to which it was a reply, should not also be en-
tered on the journal, and any further reply which the
gentleman (Mr. Kilbourn) had to make to this communi-
cation should not also be entered on the journal.
Mr. Nelson was opposed to squandering any further the
money of the State on this superintendent, or in printing
his communications.
The motion to dispense with the further reading was
then put and not agreed to.
The reading was resumed, when
Mr. Mitchell again interrupted, and submitted that the
language used towards the gentleman from Anne Arundel
was an insult to this body, of which he was a member,
and that the communication should not be read.
Mr. Tarr, of Worcester, had voted for the reading of
this communication, not supposing it was couched in such
language, and would move for a reconsideration of the
vote ordering the reading to be continued.
Mr. Motter had also voted for the reading, but now
agreed with Mr. Tarr that the reading of such a com-
munication should not be proceeded with.
Mr. Dobbin said that, in all fairness, the communica-
tion should be read. He had not heard the words said to
have been uttered in debate, but if, as stated, the super-
intendent should certainly have the privilege of being
heard. This officer had been charged with fraud and dis-
honesty, and he pronounced the charges to be false. He,
(Mr. D., ) did not see how he could reply in any other
manner, and thought the communication should be read
and printed.
The motion to reconsider was lost.
Mr. Rennolds moved that the letter be returned to us
author.
|
|
|
|
|
|
226
|
|
|
 |
