as to the extent of the difference between the
two propositions.
Mr. MERRICK suggested that there was no sort
of incompatibility between the two propositions.
Both were excellent. Let them go together. If
they did so, it seemed to him that they would re-
ceive the almost unanimous vote of the Conven-
tion.
After an explanation by Mr. DAVIS as to the
effect of the proposition.
Mr. DORSEY urged the propriety of leaving the
matter to the Legislature. They would make
such provision as they deemed right and proper,
and the Convention, he thought, should not check
or control their action in this respect. The local
situtation of each county and of the parts of coun-
ties were subjects to be considered by the Legis-
lature, and he was for leaving them untrammeled.
If the design was to abolish all local legislation,
and to say that all elections should be general, the
provision would interfere unjustly with the Le-
gislature, and impose restrictions upon the com-
munity which should not be imposed. We
should be much better protected by leaving the
power there than elsewhere. And such a mode,
it appeared to him, would do justice to every
part of the State.
Mr. MERRICK then offered the following amend-
ment, as a substitute for the said section:
"The Levy Courts or Commissioners of the
several counties of the State, shall be elected by
general ticket and not by districts, by the voters
of the respective counties; and said commission-
ers shall exercise such powers and duties only as
the Legislature may prescribe, but such powers
and duties as shall be uniform throughout the
State—and the General Assembly may provide
for the election or appointment of such other
county officers as may be required, and are not
provided for by this Constitution, and prescribe
their powers and duties, but their tenure of of-
fice, their powers and duties and mode of appointment
shall be uniform throughout the State."
Mr. THOMAS. I will accept that. It is pre-
cisely the idea. I was aiming it.
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent. It does not answer
the proposition I had in view. But I do not de-
sire to create any difficulty. And I will, there-
fore, accept it.
CONSTABLE moved to strike out the words "or
appointment," [but withdrew the motion ]
After some conversation on the part of Messrs
THOMAS, CHAMBERS, of KENT) CONSTABLE) and
BUCHANAN,
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent, moved to strike out
the words "or commissioners."
Mr. BLAKISTONE suggested that, if uniformity
was going to be provided for, the time of election
and the tenure of office should be fixed.
Mr. JOHN NEWCOMER opposed the suggestion
Mr. DAVIS suggested some considerations why
the provision proposed would operate injuriously
The question was then taken on the motion of
Mr, CHAMBERS, of Kent, to strike out the words
"or commissioners."
The amendment was rejected. |
The question recurred on the amendment of
Mr. MERRICK.
Mr. CRISFIELD moved to amend the amend-
ment, by striking out the words "Levy Courts
or," [so as to let it stand "commissioners."]
Mr. RIDGELY said, he saw what the idea which
the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. Chambers,) desired
to carry out was, and it was very proper one.
To remove all difficulty, he would offer a propo-
sition, that all these particular authorities should
be known by one name throughout the county.
Mr. RIDGELY then moved to amend said amend-
ment, by striking out these words: "the Levy
Courts or Commissioners of the several counties
of the State," and inserting in lieu thereof, the
following:
"That the county authorities now known as
levy courts or county commissioners, shall here-
after be styled commissioners, and;"
Mr. THOMAS said, that the proposition was ac-
ceptable to him.
Mr. MERRICK accepted the amendment as a
modification of his own proposition.
Mr. CRISFIELD suggested that instead of the
words "county commissioners," the words "com-
missioners of county" should be inserted.
Mr. RIDGELY said, the idea was the same.
Mr. CRISFIELD withdrew his amendment to
strike out the words "Levy Courts or."
Mr. MCMASTER moved to strike out the words
"by general ticket, and not."
Mr. DORSET seconded the motion of Mr. MC-
MASTER, and stated his objections to the general
ticket system.
Mr. PHELPS replied, and stated that no such
evils as the gentleman spoke of had, within his
knowledge, attended the general ticket system.
Mr. WRIGHT moved the previous question.
The PRESIDENT proceeded to ascertain whether
there was a second.
Mr. BUCHANAN desired to submit an amendment.
The PRESIDENT said it was not in order.
Mr. BLAKISTONE moved a call of the Convention.
The PRESIDENT stated that no motion was in
order while the Convention was dividing.
And the question having been taken, the Con-
vention refused to second the demand for the pre-
vious question.
Mr. MCHENRY indicated his desire to offer an
amendment.
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent, suggested that it
would be better that the vote should be taken on
the single question of Districts or Counties, and
that other amendments should come in after-
wards.
Mr. McHENRY said, that acommittee of which
he was a member, had had under consideration a
general plan of local organization. It seemed to
be almost the only subject which had been en-
trusted to the keeping of that committee The
amendment before the Convention took one
branch of that subject (relating to County Commissioners)
out of the hands of the committee,
thus dislocating and throwing into confusion the
whole subject. If the Convention thought pro- |
