ken. He (Mr. M.) assured him, that the very
thing which the gentleman desired to do would
recoil injuriously upon those whom he wished to
protect. He (Mr. M.) knew that the gentleman
had a very good heart, and that he did much towards
the support of a number of persons in his
own region. He (Mr. M.) felt sure that his
friend would not take the note of such a man if
this law should go into operation.
Mr. STEWART, of Caroline, said he would say
a word in reply to the complimentary allusion
which had been made to him by the gentleman
from Kent, (Mr. Mitchell )
He, (Mr. S.,) had not yet been able to satisfy
his own mind whether it would be better for the
mass of the people, that there should be a home-
stead exemption or not. All he said, was, that
if the Convention should determine to adopt such
& principle, they should fix the amount in the ar-
ticle, and should not leave it to the legislature, to
be a constant subject-matter of contention. He
cared not, whether the sum was fifty, five hun-
dred, or seven hundred dollars; but, whatever
it was, let it be fixed in the Constitution—that
the legislature might neither go below, nor
above it. He was free to say, that he thought
such a provision would operate beneficially
throughout the State.
Mr. PHELPS said, it seemed to him that such a
provision engrafted upon the Constitution, would
be of no value. Under the old Constitution, the
legislature had from time to time exempted pro-
perty from execution. He cited a case. If the
legislature had the power to do this under the
old Constitution, they would equally possess the
power under the new one.
He, however, was opposed to the principle.
He knew that such a provision had been engraft-
ed on the Constitutions of many of the new
States, and it might work well in a new country
where the property of & person was chiefly his
land, and where the exemption applied literally to
the homestead. But here the state of things was
different. Our citizens were occupied in all the
various ramifications of business, and he did not
see that any good could grow oat of such a pro-
vision. He confirmed the view taken by the gen-
tleman from Kent, (Mr. Mitchell,) and expres-
sed the opinion that the provision would embar-
rass the very class for whose benefit it was
intended.
Mr. MITCHELL, (to the Chair.) Is it in order
to move to strike out the whole of the section ?
The PRESIDENT. It is not in order.
Mr. MITCHELL. I move that the subject mat-
ter be laid upon the table.
Mr. HARBINE, I call for the yeas and nays.
Mr. MITCHELL. At the request of gentlemen
near me, I withdraw the motion to lay on the
table.
Mr Dorsey, in confirmation of the statement
made by the gentleman from Queen Anne's, (Mr.
Wright,) cited the Act of the General Assembly,
passed the sixteenth of February, 1821, entitled
"an Act for the relief of poor and distressed fa-
milies, in oases of execution for debt and distress
from rent." By this law, the bed, bedding and
51 |
wearing apparel, or other necessary articles of
housekeeping were exempted from execution.
Mr. MCLANE. Is that law now in force?
Mr. DORSEY. It is not In the following
year, (February 4, 1822,) when the practical
operation of the law had been tested, the legisla-
ture passed an act by which it was repealed.
He recollected something of the effect of this
law. The opinion was universal among the
poorer classes, that it was the most imprudent,
impolitic and inconvenient measure that could be
adopted for them. They could not get credit
for their families even where they were almost
starving. They could not rent houses—they
could get credit for nothing which their families
might need, until security could be obtained.
The poorer classes, dissatisfied with it, as he understood,
almost to a man, came forward and
demanded of their representatives the repeal of
the law, and it had been repealed as he had
shown.
Mr. MCMASTER, (to the President.) Is a sub-
stitute in order?
The PRESIDENT. Not at this time.
Mr. STEWART, of Caroline, withdrew the
amendment offered by him, and moved to amend
the amendment by striking out the words " not
more than "
The question was taken and the amendment
was rejected.
Mr. MCMASTER offered the following substi-
tute.
"That the Legislature shall, at the second ses-
sion after the adoption of this Constitution, pro-
vide by law fur the exemption from execution of
one hundred dollars worth of Household Furni-
ture or other property belonging to each family
in this State."
Mr. KILGOUR asked the yeas and nays, which
were refused.
The question was then taken on the substitute
of Mr. MCMASTER, and it was rejected,
The question recurring on the adoption of the
amendment as offered by Mr, FITZPATRICK,
Mr. HARBINE asked the yeas and nays, which
were ordered, and, being taken, resulted as fol-
lows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Blakistone, Dent, Hope-
well, Weems, Bond, Merrick, Buchanan, Bell,
Ridgely, Dashiell, Constable, Chambers of Cecil,
McLane, Shriver, Gather, Biser, Annan, Stewart
of Caroline, Sherwood of Baltimore city, Ware,
Schley, Fiery, John Newcomer, Harbine, Mich'l
Newcomer, Kilgour, Weber and Smith—28.
Negative.—Messrs. Chapman, President, Lee,
Chambers, of Kent, Mitchell, Donaldson, Dor-
sey, Wells, Jenifer, Welch, Colston, James U.
Dennis, Crisfield, Hicks, Phelps, Sprigg, Grason,
Wright, McMaster, Hearn, Fooks, Jacobs, Sap-
pington, Stephenson, Thawley, Hardcastle,
Gwinn, Stewart, of Baltimore, city, Brent, of
Baltimore city, Presstman, Hollyday and Slicer
—31.
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city, then moved to
amend said report, by adding at the end thereof
as an additional section, the following : |
