|
other evidence cancelled; but the Legislature
may make provision for the loss of certificates or
other evidences of the debt. The Treasurer
shall render his accounts quarterly to the Comp-
troller; and on the third day of each session of
the Legislature, shall submit to the Senate and
House of Delegates, fair and accurate copies of
all accounts by him from time to time rendered
and settled with the Comptroller. He shall at
all times submit to the Comptroller the inspec-
tion of the moneys in his hands, and perform
all other duties that shall be prescribed by law.
The report was read, and on motion of Mr.
MCLANE, was ordered to be printed.
INTEHNAL IMPROVEMENTS, &C.
Mr.McLANE, chairman of the committee on
the Treasury Department to whicn was referred
the order requiring said committee to inquire
into the expediency of incorporating in the Con-
stitution a clause prohibiting the Legislature
from creating debts, appropriating the public
funds for works of internal improvements or other
objects not connected with a strictly economical
administration of the State government, &c.,
asked that said committee be discharged from
the further consideration thereof, and that the
same be referred to the committee on the Legis-
lative Department.
Mr. Me LANE remarked that the Committee
did not consider this subject as coming within the
legitimate range of their duties, and had therefore
instructed him to move that they be discharged
from its further consideration, and that it be refer-
red to the Committee on the Legislative Depart-
ment of the Government. It was also under-
stood that the subject was embraced in a report
already submitted by the last named Committee.
The change of reference wag ordered accord-
ingly.
On motion of Mr, Me MASTER, the Convention
passed to the orders of the day.
THE BILt OP RIGHTS.
Thereupon, the Convention resumed the con-
sideration of the Declaration of Rights of the
State of Maryland, and of the amendments pend-
ing thereto.
Mr. DONALDSON, who was entitled to the floor
from yesterday, resumed and concluded his re-
marks.
After briefly re-capitulating the points of ob-
jection which he had made yesterday against the
amendment of the gentleman from Baltimore
city, (Mr. Presstman,) and the reasons which
led him to think that that amendment should be
qualified by the restriction contemplated in the
amendment of the gentleman from Kent, (Mr.
Chambers,) Mr. D. proceeded to cite the au-
thority of Washington, which he had yesterday
overlooked, to sustain his, [Mr. D's] position,
that a compact signified a compact of the whole,
of every part with every other part. And this,
it seemed to him, was the only sound view to
adopt in any Constitution.
He had also omitted yesterday, he said, to no-
tice an objection which might be made to his con-
struction of the compact of government. That ob-
|
jection was, that it would be impossible to carry ont
[he theory, because any single individual would
then have the right, when a new compact was
to be made, to say he would not enter into it; and
could thus, by a factious opposition, impede the
will of an overwhelming majority of a commu-
nity. To this, as to all other general principles,
the qualification was to be attached, that a theo-
retical right could not always be enforced. A man
who would proceed factiously to assert a right
where an immense majority of the community-
was against him, might commit a moral wrong;
and in this case it would be an act of madness.
So that no practical difficulty could, in fact, ever
arise. Still, the theoretical right was there.
fi one of these metaphysical rights could be taken
abstractly, but must be modified-according to the
circumstances of the «ase. Mr. D. further illus-
trated the argument by showing that the princi-
ple claimed on the other side of the absolute
power of the majority, is necessarily subject to
many qualifications in practice.
He had yesterday stated (though he could not
go fully into the question,) that there was no prac-
tical difficulty in relation to this matter. The
gentleman from Frederick, [Mr. Johnson,] had
declared that he could not bind the people of the
next generation as to matter of politics — as to
Constitutions. He [Mr. D.] argued that the peo-
ple, if they were "eternal," could so bind them-
selves. If our new Constitution shall provide,
as he presumed it would, for future amendment
by means of Conventions, or if the 59 article pro-
hibiting the legislature from taking any such action
were stricken out, [and he persumed no one was
in favor of retaining it,] then all danger would
be averted.
Had not this Convention assembled in pursu-
ance of a law passed in the face of that very ar-
ticle? That law would be right and constitutional
and by no means revolutionary, if the 59th arti-
cle were not in existence; but it seemed to himj
under present circumstances, that the act was
revolutionary, although in this particular case it
had taken the forms of law, and had been acqui-
esced in by the whole1 people. He did not wish
again to subject the community to any such dan-
ger — because, of late years, the popular impulses
had become too strong for such trials.
So in relation to the question of the public debt
— as to how far one generation could bind anoth-
er to repay the money which it had squandered.
There, he thought, was room for argument — but
still, the error should always be upon that
side which maintained the public faith without
the slighest blur. He supposed it to be an almost
unanimous feeling in this body, that restrictions
should be placed in the power of the Legislature
to contract public debt; that the property of our
descendants should not be thus deeply mortgaged,
but that provision should be made for the pay-
ment of the debt within a reasonable time. Adopt
the principle maintained by the gentleman from
Frederick, (Mr. Johnson,) and there would be
no such thing as faith in a political Community ;
there would be no power to bind even for a
day. That was one extreme. The other ex-
treme was binding a people forever, for any
|
