clear space clear space clear space white space
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Proceedings and Debates of the 1850 Constitutional Convention
Volume 101, Volume 1, Debates 436   View pdf image
 Jump to  
clear space clear space clear space white space
Branching from these explanatory remarks—
Mr. SOLLERS concluded his explanation.
Mr. BROWN demanded the previous question—
and gave notice that he would not withdraw it.
It was lime that the debate should be brought to
Mr. EGE asked Mr. BROWN to withdraw, to
enable him to make a few remarks.
Mr. BROWN declined to withdraw.
The question was then taken on the demand
for the previous question and there was not a
The question then recurred on the amendment
Mr. MERRICK intimated that a proper time,
when a suitable occasion should offer, and that
he supposed would be when the report of the
committee on public "works came up for consid-
eration, he intended to show that if the provisions
of the act of 1836 had been complied with, the
evil day which had caused us so much sorrow,
would not have come on Maryland. It was in
the contemplation of the Convention, he believ-
ed, when the report of the committee on educa-
tion shall be taken up for discussion, to adopt
some mode for the support of public schools,
which will be free from the objections of gentle-
men who oppose the present proposition.
Mr. EGE replied to the charges which, at least
by construction, were made against him and
those who voted with him, in the course he was
pursuing with reference to the subject of educa-
tion. He could only say that he was taking his
course on his own personal responsibility to his
constituents, and that the charge of demagogue-
ism, so far as he was concerned, fell harmless.
He repelled the idea that this Convention was a
humbug, and expressed a hope that no gentle-
man would permit himself to be driven by the
mere fear of ridicule from an honest persever-
ance in the line of duty. He knew not why lo-
cal and popular rights should be withheld on no
better ground than that they are advocated by a
certain class of political men.
He came here for the purpose of sustaining
certain prominent principles, and of these, edu-
cation was one which he intended to stand by
to the last. against any force which might oppose
him; nay, if he stood alone in the. Convention.
If his people were to say that his course did not
meet their approbation, he would yield obedience
to their voice and resign his seat here. As to the
question of the election of judges, he reminded
gentlemen that the judges of Israel were elected
by the people. And he asked, whether any one,
of any party, could be found to vote for a judge
whom he deemed incompetent to perform the
duties of his office. He referred to the satisfac-
tory result of the application of the elective prin-
ciple to the people of New York, and asked why
it should be assailed as demagogueism when we
are only attempting to introduce the same princi-
ple here which had been successful there ? He
was of opinion that justice was rendered without
perversion in other States of the Union where
judges were elected by the people, and that the
fountains of justice was quite as pure there as
they are in this State. It had been alleged that
every thing is to be done here by party influence,
and that the cry is, " stick to your party ! " He
was of no party here, and he left others to pur-
sue that course which was thought right; and let
his acts to be judged of by his own constituents.
This Convention had been called into existence
by the voice of the people. It was at first op-
posed by those in power. But the clarion of Re-
form sounded from the western hills of Maryland
until power began to tremble, The people have
called for reform in a voice of thunder, which
will make itself heard here. He concluded with
stating, that when he rose he merely designed to
show the unequal operation of the amendment of
the gentleman from Montgomery.
Mr. SOLLERS briefly explained.
The question then again recurred on the adop-
tion of the amendment of Mr. SPENCER.
Mr. DORSEY called for a division on striking
Which was ordered.
Mr. MCHENRY said that the objection which,
in his opinion, lay against the amendment of the.
gentleman from Montgomery, would be also against
the amendment of the gentleman from Queen
Anne's, (Mr. Spencer.) The true mode is to
draw the money required for the object, at the
time when wanted, from the people by taxation.
The gentleman from Calvert was right in his opin-
ion, that the people are opposed to the contrac-
tion of any further debt by the State. The
amendment of the gentleman from Queen Anne's
might, if adopted, lead to serious embarrassment.
He, (Mr. McH.,) desired to prevent the Legisla-
ture from exercising any power to loan the credit
of the State for any object. He intimated that
he had an amendment which he proposed to offer.
Mr. MCHENRY then moved to amend said
amendment, by adding at the end thereof, the
"The credit of the State shall not, in any
manner, be given or loaned to or in aid of any
individual, association or corporation, nor shall
the General Assembly have the power, in any
mode, to involve the State in the construction of
works of internal improvement, or in any enter-
prise which shall involve the faith or credit of
the State."
Mr, SPENCER, (some members not being pre-
sent, he said, when he offered his amendmet,) re-
peated his explanation of it, and gave notice of
his intention, if it should prevail, to follow it up
with another amendment, which he read.
Mr. SOLLERS suggested to Mr. MCHENRY a
modification of his amendment, which is embodi-
ed in it as given above.
The question was then stated to be on the said
amendment, as modified.
Mr. MCHENRY asked the yeas and nays,
Which were ordered, and
Being taken, resulted as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs Chapman, Pres't, Blakis-
tone, Dent, Hopewell, Dorsey, Wells, Kent,
Sellman, Weems, Sollers, Merrick, Bell, Welch,
Chandler, Ridgely, Lloyd, Colston, James U.
Dennis, Dashiell, Hicks, Hodson, Goldsborough,
Eccleston, Chambers of Cecil, Miller, Sprigg,
Bowling, McMaster, Fooks, Shriver, Biser, Sap-

clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Proceedings and Debates of the 1850 Constitutional Convention
Volume 101, Volume 1, Debates 436   View pdf image
 Jump to  

This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.

Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!

An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact

©Copyright  October 06, 2023
Maryland State Archives