ger, that we may come to an unwise decision.
Therefore, he was disposed to leave the matter
to be disposed of by the legislature. He thought
there was a great deal offeree in the remarks of
the gentleman from Anne Arundel. (Mr. Dor-
sey,) and that the proposition now offered, might
operate unjustly.
The amendment as it was originally offered by
the gentleman from Allegany, (Mr. Fitzpatrick.)
appeared to have been the form which was the
least objectionable.
Mr. RIDGELY gave notice of the following
amendment:
"Laws shall be passed by the legislature to
protect from execution, a reasonable amount of
the property of a debtor."
Mr. BRENT defended his construction of the
act of assembly. He did not desire to leave this
subject to the discretion of the legislature. It
was his wish to settle the question at once, and
secure this small boon to the families of deceased
debtors.
Mr. CRISFIELD said he had ventured to differ
with the gentleman from the city of Baltimore,
[Mr. Brent,] in his construction of the act of the
last session of the General Assembly; and not-
withstanding the great attainments and elevated
position of that gentleman, he must be allowed
to say that he still differed. The gentleman's
idea is that if the distributive share of the widow
should be less than $150, she would not, under
the first section of that act, be entitled to take
that sum. The gentleman had not read the
whole section; he would read it; and the mere
reading, he thought would be decisive of the
question at issue, between them. Mr. C. here
read the first section of the act as follows :
"That, in all cases hereafter, when letters of
administration or testamentary shall be issued by
any of the orphans courts in this State, and an
inventory and appraisement of the personal estate
of the person deceased shall have been returned,
by the executor or executrix, administrator or
administratrix, to the orphans court of the
county, &c., the widow of such deceased per-
son shall have the right to take to herself,
and apply to her own use, and the use or her
children, such household and kitchen furniture,
or other personal property as she may choose;
provided, the said deceased died seized of no
real estate; provided the same shall not exceed
in value, according to the inventory and appraise-
ment aforesaid, the sum of one hundred and fifty
dollars; and provided further, that the amount of
personal property so selected to be taken by her,
shall be deducted from her distributive share of
of said personal estate."—[1849, ch. 543, sec. 1.]
There could be no misunderstanding as to the
import of this statute. By the plain words of the
law, the widow was entitled to the sum of $150
"in all cases hereafter;" and the effect of the last
proviso was simply to prevent her from taking
that sum in addition to her distributive share.
She is entitled to $150 in all events; when her
distributive share exceeds that amount, that sum
is to be deducted from the share.
Mr. BRENT in reply, stated that the construc-
tion of the act was purely a legal question, and |
he did not desire to discuss it any farther here,
but would agree to argue a case stated, for the
satisfaction of the gentleman, [Mr. Crisfield,] so
that the courts might decide who was right.
The question then recurred on the amendment
of Mr. MCMASTER, to strike out the words "administrator
or."
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. RIDGELY now offered his substitute as
above given.
The question was taken.
No quorum voted.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city, asked the yeas
and nays, which were ordered, and being taken,
resulted as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't., Blakis-
tone, Hopewell, Lee, Chambers of Kent, Mitch-
ell, Donaldson, Dorsey, Wells, Weems, Merrick,
Bell, Welch, Ridgely, Colston, James U. Dennis,
Crisfield, Dashiell, Hicks, Phelps, Sprigg, Bow-
ling, Wright, McMaster, Hearn, Fooks, Gaither,
Sappington, Stephenson, Thawley, Stewart of
Caroline, Hardcastle, Stewart of Baltimore city,
Sherwood of Baltimore city, Presstman, Ware,
and Kilgour—37.
Negative—Messrs. Dent, Ricaud, Bond, Jen-
ifer, Buchanan, Grason, Jacobs, Shriver, Biser,
Annan, Gwinn, Brent of Baltimore city, Schley,
Fiery, John Newcomer, Harbine, Nichael New-
comer, Weber, Hollyday, Slicer, and Smith—20.
So the amendment was adopted.
Mr. DONALDSON then moved that the whole
subject matter be laid on the table.
Mr. KILGOUR asked the yeas and nays which
were ordered, and being taken, resulted as fol-
lows :
Affirmative— Messrs. Chambers of Kent, Mitch-
ell, Donaldson, Dorsey, Wells, Merrick, Jenifer,
Hicks, Phelps, Sprigg, Wright, McMaster, Hearn,
Fooks, Jacobs, Gaither, Annan, and Presst-
man—18.
Negative— Messrs. Chapman, Pres't., Blakis-
tone, Dent, Hopell, Ricaud, Lee, Weems, Bond,
Buchanan, Bell, Welch, Ridgely, Colston, James
U. Dennis, Crisfield, Dashiell, Bowling, Grason,
Shriver, Biser, Sappington, Stephenson, Thaw-
ley, Stewart of Caroline, Hardcastle, Gwinn,
Stewart of Baltimore city, Brent of Baltimore
city. Ware, Schley, Fiery, John Newcomer,
Kilgour, Weber, Hollyday, Slicer, and Smith—
39.
So the subject matter was not laid on the
table.
Mr DENT offered the following substitute :
"The Legislature at its first session after the
adoption of this Constitution, shall make some
provision by law, exempting a reasonable amount
of the property of the heads of families from sei-
zure or sale for the payment of any debt, or lia-
bility thereafter contracted,"
The question was taken.
No quorum voted.
Mr. DENT explained that his proposition dif-
fered from that of the gentleman from Baltimore
county in this respect: That his, (Mr. R's,) is
too general in its provision, while his, (Mr.
D's.,) substitute looks to a provision for a spe-
cial class. The proposition of the gentleman' |
