state of the question, under the different amend-
ments which had been adopted.
Mr. CHAMBERS explained, in detail, the vari-
ous particulars involved in the amendment of the
gentleman from Baltimore, to show that it inclu-
ded all the provisions which the Convention, by
its previous votes, had expressed a willingness to
adopt, except only a portion of the amendment
of the gentleman from Caroline. He advocated
the system of codification, and would agree to
the plan of simplifying the system of special
pleading, as it seemed to be the wish of the Con-
vention. He suggested various difficulties which
must result, if the Convention adhered to the por-
tion of the amendment which was now omitted.
He was aware how difficult it was for gentlemen
who had cast their votes in favor of it yesterday,
to surrender pre-conceived and pre-expressed
opinions. It was a false pride, though common
to us all. But he did believe, if persisted in,
this necessity to repeal or re-enact every thing in
a former law having an " object " in common
with the new law, would result in many and
great mischiefs. It would require infinite labor
and a large share of legal investigation in every
case, and very often the result would be, that the
new law, by its repealing clause, would operate
upon previous provisions never intended to be re-
pealed; or if there were no repealing clause, the
new law would not be pursuant to the Constitu-
tion for the want of a full enumeration and re-
enactment of all the previous provisions having a
common object. He denied that after the expe-
rience of its mischiefs in a few instances, it would
prevent incompetent persons from attempting to
draft Acts of Assembly. Every session would
bring in new members of that class; and the last
to perceive his incompetency would be the incom-
petent member. Experience of others would
never profit such a man. Bad as it might be to
have a law drafted so obscurely as to make it
difficulty or even impossible to give it operation,
it was worse to have this additional mischief, that
useful provisions of pre-existing laws should be
annulled when no one deaired or designed to re-
peal them.
He illustrated these positions and strongly
urged the adoption of the amendment of the gen-
tleman from Baltimore.
Mr. THOMAS made abrief reply, in which he
further illustrated the arguments he had made on
several previous occasions. He enforced the po-
sition he had formerly taken, that parts of some
laws ought not to be amended without rendering
it necessary to re-enact the whole, because all
other parts would be affected by the change of a
part. He referred to the acts granting charters
to banks and other corporations, which contained
a number of conditions and restrictions occupy-
ing various sections, and to the practice which
prevailed, of lobby members coming here for the
purpose of obtaining supplementary acts for the
purpose of repealing such sections as were most
onerous, and said that our statute books were
swelled out by these numerous supplements pas-
sed by Legislatures that did not see their effect.
He wished to avoid this inconvenient multiplica-
tion of laws. He could not see that any obsta-

cles would be thrown in the way of present le-
gislation by the course he recommended. He
thought that by it this danger would be avoided,
of surprise on the Legislature, when the section
to be repealed or amended and the whole act of
incorporation, of which it was a part, were print-
ed and laid before the House, having the ques-
tion of repeal under consideration.
Mr, CHAMBERS thought much difficulty would
grow out of the use of indefinite language. An
act of Assembly often has a variety of "objects."
It cannot be necessary to re-enact a whole law,
perhaps a long one, and to republish it because a
new law changes some one of these objects, or
provides a new and additional rule concerning
them. He instanced cases that might occur in
in regard to the testamentary act, which is almost
a volume of itself.
He did not perceive how the proposed preven-
tion of frauds was to be accomplished by it, as
suggested.
If. as has been said, members of the Legislature
would not look at provisions in a printed volume,
lying open before them, containing the laws of a
previous session, to learn the character of a bank
charter or any other charter, why should we ex-
pect them to look at the pages of another docu-
ment? Nothing but a blind confidence, which
closes the eye to all means of information, ex-
cept from the party confided in, could occasion
such gross and culpable neglect of duty. Mis-
placed confidence under any system will end in
fraud. Even in this wonderful age of "progress,"
that great desideratum was yet to be attained—
"a mode to prevent the cunning knave from over-
reaching the credulous and unsuspecting."
He pointed out various advantages as likely to
ensue from the adoption of the amendment of
the gentleman from Baltimore.
Mr. GWINN said:
That the gentleman from Kent, had so tho-
roughly established the unreasonableness and in-
convenience of the proposition of the gentleman
from Caroline, that he would not recur to any
portion of the argument upon that head. He
desired, however, to answer an illustration, used
by the gentleman from Frederick. Admit that &
charter had been obtained, by the person alluded
to, which conferred, by way of supplement, extra-
ordinary powers upon any corporation. What
did it prove ? Why, surely, if the charter went
beyond the intention of the Legislature, it de-
monstrated only that the Legislature had been
imposed on, or that the committee, which
had charge of that branch of the public business,
had not paid proper attention to their work. Nor
did he see how the mistake could ordinarily oc-
cur. For if a. bill repealed an act by its title, or
a section by its number, it was not likely that
any committee would be so grossly neglectful, as
to omit the examination of that which they de-
signed to repeal, and if any thing were added
it would speak for itself.
If the whole law were to be re-enacted, worse
errors would occur. By a supplement, the only
mischief done, was what its terms accomplished.
But if the theory of the gentleman was true, and
whatever was omitted was repealed—infinitely