|
|
|
should continue the law, so as to exclude rogues and
thieves. Thad. Stevens and his followers in Pennsylvania
would resort to every means to carry the border counties,
and they should take such means as would secure them
and the State to the gallant democracy.
Mr. McKaig said the majority of the counties did not
want and had no need for a registry, but it should exist
in Baltimore city and county, and sooner than not have it
there, they would go for having it all over the State.
Mr. Gill very much regretted that this motion had been
made, and argued in favor of a registry as absolutely es-
sential for the safety and protection of the people of the
State. He had, years ago, when suffering under political
oppression, come here with others of his fellow-citizens
and asked for a registry law. In reference to having it
apply to Baltimore alone, he was not willing for it; wanted
no such enviable distinction, and if it was not to apply to
the whole State he did not want it in Baltimore.
Mr. Maulsby asked if the gentleman represented the
views of his delegation on the subject?
Mr. Gill had not conferred with his colleagues, but
thought he represented the view?s of a majority of them.
Mr. Maulsby said if that was the case, he would with-
draw his amendment.
Mr. Vansant did not concur in the views of his col-
league, (Mr. Gill. ) He (Mr. V. ) thought Baltimore would
receive graciously this law if applied only to herself. He
supposed the gentlemen of the counties knew what suited
them, and Baltimore did not wish to impose a registry-
law on them if they did not desire it; but in Baltimore
they certainly needed it.
Mr. Brewer and Mr. Henderson expressed their con-
currence in the views of Mr. Gill.
Mr. Brown concurred in the views of Mr. Vansant.
Mr. Peters declared his intention of supporting the
amendment of Mr. Maulsby.
Mr. George advocated the propriety of extending the
registry throughout the State, but he would not force it
upon the counties if they did not want it. He thought,
233
|
|
|
|
 |
