Affirmative—Messrs. Chapman, President, Morgan,
Blakistone, Dent, Hopewell, Ricaud, Cham-
bers of Kent, Mitchell. Donaldson, Dorsey,
Wells, Kent, Sellman, Weems, Bond, Merrick,
Jenifer, Buchanan, Bell, Colston, James U. Den-
nis, Crisfield, Phelps, Constable, Chambers of
Cecil, Miller, George, Jacobs, Thomas, Shriv-
er, Biser. Sappington, Stephenson, McHenry,
Nelson, Thawley, Stewart of Caroline, Gwinn,
Presstman, Michael Newcomer, Kilgour, Holly-
day, Parke and Brown—44.
Negative—Messrs. Lee, Ridgely, Lloyd, Gra-
son, Wright, McMaster, Fooks, Gaither, Hard-
castle, Stewart of Baltimore city, Sherwood of
Baltimore city. Ware, Fiery, John Newcomer,
Harbine, Brewer, Weber, Slicer, Fitzpatrick,
Shower and Cockey—19.
So the vole was reconsided.
Mr, MERRICK then moved to amend the said
section by adding at the end thereof the follow-
ing:
"But it shall be competent for the legislature
at any time, when it can do so, to pay off its out-
standing bonds, or any part thereof, by an issue
of other bonds or stocks bearing a less rate of
interest and for no greater amount than the
amount redeemed or paid off."
Some conversation followed between Messrs.
THOMAS and MERRICK, as to the propriety of
laying the section over informally for the pre-
sent.
Mr. CONSTABLE offered the following, as a
substitute for the original section:
1. The legislature shall have no power to con-
tract debts or borrow money except to repel in-
vasion or suppress insurrection.
2. They shall have no power to authorise any
subscription on the part of the State to the capital
stack or shares of any canal, rail road, plank
road, turnpike, banking, exchange, insurance,
manufacturing or mining corporation, or of any
other corporation or association whatsoever; nor
shall they invest or embark any of the funds of
the State, either directly or indirectly, in any
trade, business or adventure of mining, manufac-
turing, commercial and marine, or of any other
description whatsoever.
3. They shall not be authorised to loan the
credit of the State, in any form or fur any pur-
pose whatsoever.
4. They shall have no power to appropriate
money for any purpose, or to any object for
which they are not authorised to raise the sum
so appropriated by a general State tax.
5. They shall be authorised to impose State
taxes for the following purposes, and none other
whatsoever: For the defelice of the State, pay-
ment of the principal and interest of the. public
debt, to defray the necessary expenses of the
government, for the improvement and preservation
of the public property, and for the establish-
ment of a uniform system of public schools
throughout the State, adequately endowed to
educate every white child within its limits.
6. They shall have no power to except from
the operation .of any law, imposing a general |
State tax, any other property than that owned by
the State, or by a county, city, or other munici-
pal corporation and burial grounds; nor shall
they by law or otherwise enter into any contract
or other expedient, or devise to exempt, or which
shall operate as an exemption or suspension,
wholly or partially of any other property, or
body corporate, or of any person worth over two
hundred dollars, from contribution, rateably and
equally to such general tax, according to his or
its actual worth in real or personal property.
The consideration of the section was then postponed
until Tuesday next.
The thirty-fourth section of the report was
then read as follows:
Sec. 34. The General Assembly may confer
upon of the several
counties, such powers of local legislation and ad-
ministration as they may prescribe, provided,
however, that all laws conferring such powers
shall be general in their nature, and shall extend
to all the counties of the state.
Mr. PHELPS, moved to amend said section by
filling the blank in said section with these words
"the Levy court or commissioners of the tax
as the case may be."
Mr. JOHN NEWCOMER moved to insert "the
county courts."
Mr, PRESSTMAN moved to strike out' the section.
(It was, lie said, wholly impracticable, if intend-
ed for the city of Baltimore.)
Mr, JOHN NEWCOMER withdrew his amend-
ment.
Some explanatory conversation followed, on
the part of Messrs. PHELPS, DORSEY, PRESSTMAN,
CHAMBERS, of Kent, BROWN and RIDGELY.
Mr. PRESSTMAN said it seemed to be the gene-
ral impression of the Convention, that the city of
Baltimore was not: to be reached by the section.
If this was so, he should not press his amend-
ment.
Mr. PHELPS withdrew his amendment.
The question then recurred on the motion of
Mr. PRESSTMAN to strike out the section.
Mr. GWINN offered an amendment, (not to be
found on this day's journal, but which will be
found in the proceedings of the succeeding day.)
Its general object was to give to the Mayor and
City Council of Baltimore the exclusive right to
open streets, &c.
Mr. GWINN briefly explained the necessity of
the amendment.
Mr. PRESSTMAN said he was more satisfied
than ever that the section of the report could not
have any application to the city of Baltimore. If
so, he would regret to see the amendment of his
colleague prevail—not because he was opposed to
it, but because it would give the appearance that
the whole section was intended to apply to the
city of Baltimore.
Mr, CHAMBERS, of Kent, dissented from this
view, and did not understand that the same gene-
ral feature of the law did not apply to the city of
Baltimore as well as to other portions of the
State, |
