Mr. JENIFER enquired of the Chair, whether
the effect of this motion would be to postpone all
other special orders.
The PRESIDENT said there was only one special
order.
Mr. DAVIS interposed, and said that more than
one hour had already been spent, and he would
move that the Convention proceed to the orders
of the day.
Mr. NEILL moved that the consideration of the
orders of the day be postponed, for the purpose
of acting upon the question now pending before
the Convention.
Mr. DAVIS asked the yeas and nays,
Which were ordered.
Some conversation followed on a point of or-
der, in which Messrs. THOMAS, SPENCER, MER-
RICK and the PRESIDENT took part.
The question was then taken on the motion of
Mr. NEILL,
And the result was as follows:
Affirmative-Messrs. Buchanan, Bell, Welch,
Ridgely, Lloyd, Colston, Constable, Chambers,
of Cecil, McCullough, Miller, Spencer, Grason,
George, Thomas, Gaither, Biser, Annan, Mc-
Henry, Magraw, Stewart, of Caroline, Hard-
castle, Gwinn, Stewart, of Baltimore city, Sher-
wood, of Baltimore city, Presstman, Ware,
Schley, Fiery, Neill, Harbine, Michael Newcom-
er, Weber, Hollyday, Slicer, Parke, Ege, Cockey
and Brown-38.
Negative-Messrs. Chapman, Pres't, Blakistone,
Dent, Hopewell, Ricaud, Lee, Chambers, of
Kent, Mitchell, Donaldson, Dorsey, Wells, Ran-
dall, Kent, Sellman, Weems, Sollers, Merrick,
Jenifer, James U. Dennis, Crisfield, Dashiell,
Hicks, Hodson, Goldsborough, Eccleston, Bow-
ie, Sprigg, McCubbin, Bowling, McMaster,
Fooks, Sappington, Stephenson, Brent of Balti-
more city, John Newcomer, Davis, Kilgour and
Smith-38.
A tie vote.
So the motion of Mr. NEILL was rejected.
And the Convention passed to the orders of the
day.
THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT.
The Convention resumed the consideration of
the report of the committee on the legislative
department of the government,
The question pending before the Convention
on yesterday, being on the motion of Mr. THOM-
AS to reconsider the vote of the Convention on
the amendment submitted by Mr. DAVIS, and
adopted by the Convention, inserting in the
amendment offered by Mr. GEORGE, as the twen-
ty-first section of the report, these words, "ex-
cept for the purposes of education," to come in after
the word "corporations," in the twelfth line.
Mr. EGE was entitled to the floor.
He desired, he said, to call the particular at-
tention of the Convention to the proposition
which had yesterday been adopted on the motion
of his friend from Montgomery, (Mr. Davis.)
He, (Mr. E.,) considered the amendment as in-
appropriate, and as not coming up to that high |
principle which he, and as he believed, a majori-
ty of the people of Maryland, desired to see en-
grafted on the Constitution of the State. He al-
luded to the principle of education.
His design in now addressing the Convention
was, to show that the amendment of the gentle-
man from Montgomery was out of place here,
and that his object could be accomplished in a
different and a better form.
It was out of place, because in point of law,
or under the rule of common sense, the proposi-
tion of the gentleman form Queen Anne's, (Mr.
George,) to which that of the gentleman from
Montgomery was an amendment, did not forbid
the application of moneys by the Legislature to
the purposes of a general common school sys-
tem of education. It only forbid appropriations
or grants to the use of individuals, associations,
or corporations, an object which he earnestly de-
sired to see accomplished. And unless the com-
mittee on education by their report, and the gen-
tleman from Montgomery, (Mr. Davis,) by his
amendment, desired that individuals, corpora-
tions, or associations, coming particularly under
the head of academies and colleges, should be
benefitted by this provision, he, (Mr. E.,) could
see no good reason for its adoption.
The committee on education should have re-
ported a definite proposition for the action of the
Convention, not smothering this great principle
under the operation of previous laws, but adopt-
ing it as a fundmental provision of the organic
law which should confer benefits and blessings
upon generations yet to come.
Mr. SMITH, (chairman of the committee on
education,) interposed, and desired to say a word
in explanation.
Mr. EGE yielded the floor for that purpose.
Mr. SMITH desired to say, that the proposition
now before the Convention, had nothing to do
with the report of the committee on education.
It was not at all connected with it, nor was the
report of the committee now the subject-matter
of discussion before the Convention. He thought
that the gentleman ought not to involve the sub-
ject in any difficulty of this kind.
Mr. EGE resumed. Certainly, he said, he de-
signed no reflection on the chairman of the com-
mittee on education, or on the committee itself.
His main object was to show the connection of
this great principle of common school education
with the highest and best interests of the people,
through the length and breadth of the State.
The amendment of the gentleman from Mont-
gomery, (Mr. Davis,) as appended to the propo-
sition of the gentleman from Queen Anne's, (Mr.
George,) was in the following words:
"Nor shall the Legislature hereafter appropri-
ate the public money, or pledge the public faith
for the use of individuals, associations, or corpor-
ations, except for purposes of education."
Under what rule ? Under the rule which had
been reported to the Convention by the commit-
tee on education—and which he should show
Operated unjustly and unequally, and did not
confer the advantages which the framers of the
law themselves intended to bestow. |
