"The Legislature shall have power to provide
by law, for exempting from execution not more
than five hundred dollars worth of the household
furniture or other property belonging to each
family in this State."
Mr. MORGAN called the attention of the gen-
tleman from Alleghany, (Mr. Fitzpatrick,) to
the fact that a similiar provision had been re-
ported by Mr. PRESSTMAN.
Mr. FITZPATRICK said the provision in the re-
port alluded to, was not as specific as his own
proposition. But he would withdraw it, and
gave notice that he should hereafter offer it as an
additional section.
Mr. SPRIGG moved to amend said report by in-
serting as the nineteenth section, the follow-
ing:
"The House of Delegates shall have the sole
power of impeachment in all cases, but a majo-
rity of all the members, must concur in an im-
peachment; all impeachments shall be tried by
the Senate, and when sitting for that purpose,
they shall be on oath or affirmation, to do justice
according to the law and evidence, but no per-
son shall be convicted without the concurrency
of two-thirds of all the Senators."
Mr. CHAMBERS expressed a wish that the
words "not otherwise provided for in this Con-
stitution" should be stricken out. He thought
that there was no other tribunal competent to
try cases of impeachment but the Senate. They
were in a thousand instances founded on charges
which had no legal definition. The appropriate
duties of the ordinary courts of law and of juries
were not at all applicable to such cases. They
ought to be tried only before a tribunal which is
discharged from all the technicalities by which
the ordinary courts are bound.
Mr. SPRIGG said he would accept the amend-
ment suggested by the gentleman from Kent, and
would modify his amendment accordingly.
Mr. MCHENRY moved to amend the amend-
ment of Mr. SPRIGG by striking out the words
"two-thirds," and inserting in lieu thereof "a
majority."
Mr. MCHENRY was sorry the amendment he
had now submitted had not been offered by some
other gentleman. He believed it would be found
impossible ever to get two-thirds of the Legisla-
ture to agree to the dismissal of an unworthy of-
ficer. He would be happy to take the sense of
the Convention on his amendment,
Mr. TUCK replied that the agreement of two-
thirds was required in most, or all of the other
States. The object of the two-third rule was to
protect the accused party against party or political
hostility. That was the original cause of the pro-
vision. If, in ordinary cases, where an individu-
al is accused of crime, it is required that a jury
of twelve men must agree on a verdict, he did
not see why there should not be an agreement of
two-thirds in cases of impeachment, which are
also of a criminal character. He therefore,
thought it would be much the best way to let it
remain two-thirds.
Mr. WEEMS, after requesting that the amend-
ment should be read, suggested the insertion of

the word "elected" after "members." It would
then accord with the rest of the section.
Mr. MCHENRY said this would make the pro-
vision still more stringent. The gentleman from
Prince George's (Mr. Tuck,) says that these are
criminal cases, and that they should be treated in
a way analagous to others of the same character.
But impeachment cases are not always founded
on criminal acts. Very frequently, they merely
look to the removal of officers who have become
inefficient or incompetent. Even if a majority
had the power to make these removals, he did not
think they would be made as easily as they ought
to be. Every facility ought to be rendered for
the removal of incompetent public officers. Ex-
cept in times of great party excitement, all the
the public sympathies would be in favor of the
accused; and it was his object to obtain some se-
curity for the public interests.
Mr. JENIFER was of opinion that if the amend-
ment prevailed, impeachment, instead of being a
criminal prosecution, would be a party or politi-
cal persecution. You insert a provision in the
Constitution that these public officers shall be
elected by the people, and then you insert an-
other provision giving a party majority the power
to remove them from office by impeachment.
The subject had been already discussed on a for-
mer occasion. He hoped the amendment would
not prevail.
Mr. NEILL reminded the House that this sub-
ject was likely to come up again for discussion,
when the judiciary report shall be before the
Convention. There was some portion of that re-
port which contained a provision of this char-
acter. He would, therefore, suggest it as the
better course to postpone the consideration of
this question, until the report of the judiciary
committee shall be up for consideration.
Mr. SPRIGG accepted the suggestion, and the
section was informally laid over.
The nineteenth section was then read as fol-
lows:
Section 19th. No money shall be drawn from
the Treasury of this State but in consequence of
appropriations made by law, an accurate state-
ment of the receipts and expenditure of public
money shall be attached to and published with
the laws after each regular session of the Gener-
al Assembly.
Mr. RIDGELY moved to amend said section by
inserting after the word "law" in the second
line, the following:
"And every such law shall distinctly specify
the sum appropriated, and the object to which it
is to be applied."
The question was taken, and the amendment
was agreed to.
Mr. RIDGELY (to avoid all ambiguity, he said,)
moved to amend the section by adding at the end
thereof, the following words :
"Provided, that nothing, herein contained, shall
operate to prevent the Legislature from placing
by appropriation a contingent fund at the dispo-
sal of the Executive."
Mr. SPENCER stated, that he felt some hesita-
tion about voting for this amendment. He hoped