Volume 96, Page 571 View pdf image (33K) |
1900.] OF THE SENATE, 571 AMENDMENT PROPOSED. By Mr. Putze], Amend by striking out the words "and between any other points the company may select," in line 8 of sec- tion 6. Which was withdrawn. FURTHER AMENDMENT PROPOSED. By Mr. Putzel, Amend by adding to the end of section 6, the follow- ing: "But nothing herein contained shall he held to authorize said corporation to construct its lines or erect poles in the city of Baltimore." Which proposed amendment was rejected by yeas and nays as follows: AFFIRMATIVE. Messrs. Bryan, Putzel—3. Moses, NEGATIVE. Messrs. Baker, Kirwan, Betts, Marsh, Bouic, Peter, Crothers, Ravenscroft, Dennis, Rohrback, Dick, Wilkiuson, Dodson, Williams, of A. A. Gray, —15. FURTHER AMENDMENT PROPOSED. By Mr. Putzel, Amend by adding at the end of section 6: "Provided, however, should said corporation extend its lines into Baltimore city, it shall be subject to the provisions of chapter 123, of the Acts of the General As- sembly of 1898." Which proposed amendment was adopted, and The bill was read the second time and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading. |
||||
Volume 96, Page 571 View pdf image (33K) |
Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!
|
An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact
mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.