pington, Stephenson, McHenry, Magraw, Stew-
art of Caroline, Hardcastle, Schley, Fiery, Neill,
John Newcomer, Michael Newcomer, Kilgour,
Ege, Cockey and Brown—46.
Negative—Messrs. Ricaud, Lee, Chambers of
Kent, Mitchell, Donaldson, Randall, Crisfield,
Bowie, McCubbin, Spencer, Grason, George,
'Thomas, Gaither, Annan, Thawley, Gwinn,
Stewart of of Baltimore city, Sherwood of Baltimore
city, Presstman, Ware, Harbine, Davis,
Weber, Hollyday, Slicer, Smith and Parke—28.
So the amendment was agreed to.
The question then recurred on the adoption of
.the amendment, as amended.
Some conversation followed on a point of order,
[arising out of some confusion as to the state
of the question.]
To obviate the difficulty in which the Conven-
tion had become involved—
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent, moved a reconsidera-
tion of the vote by which the modified amend-
ment of Mr. McHenry had been adopted.
Mr. THOMAS suggested that the object [which
was to get at the the judgment of the respective
propositions of Messrs. Spencer and McHenry,]
could be attained by a division of the question.
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent, assented and withdrew
his motion to reconsider.
Mr. SOLLERS moved to amend said amendment
:by striking out the first branch thereof—being
that portion of the amendment offered by Mr.
SPENCER.
The question then recurred on the second
branch of the said amendment.
Mr. SOLLERS moved to amend by adding at
the end thereof, these words;
"Or making any appropriations therefor."
The amendment was agreed to.
The question then recurred on the adoption of
the second branch of said amendment, as
amended.
Mr. THOMAS asked the yeas and nays,
Which were ordered, and
The question having been taken, the result
was as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't, Blakis-
tone, Dent, Hopewell, Ricaud, Lee, Chambers of
Kent, Mitchell, Donaldson, Dorsey, Wells, Ran-
dall, Kent, Weems, Sollers, Merrick, Welch,
Chandler, James U. Dennis, Dashiell, Hicks,
Hodson, Goldsborough, Eccleston, Constable,
Bowie, Sprigg, McCubbin, McMaster, Fooks,
Sappington, Stephenson, McHenry, Hardcastle,
Schley, Fiery, Neill, John Newcomer, Michael
Newcomer, Davis, Kilgour and Cockey—42.
Negative—Messrs. Bell, Ridgely, Lloyd, Col-
ston, Crisfield, McCullough, Miller, Bowling,
Spencer, Grason, George, Thomas, Shriver,
Gaither, Biser, Annan, Thawley, Stewart of
Caroline, Gwinn, Brent of Baltimore city, Sher-
wood of Baltimore city, Presstman, Ware, Har-
bine, Weber, Hollyday, Slicer, Smith, Parke,
Ege and Brown—31.
So the second branch of the amendment, as
amended, was adopted.
Mr. SPENCER then moved as a substitute for
the amendment just adopted, the following:
"The legislature shall not hereafter appropri- |
ate the public money, or pledge the public faith,
or make loans or subscriptions to any association
corporation or work of internal improvement;.
and they shall not use or appropriate the proceeds
of the internal improvement companies, or of the
State tax now levied, or which may hereafter
be levied, to pay off the public debt, to any other
purpose, until the interests and debt are fully
paid."
Mr. CRISFIELD gave notice that at the proper
time, he should offer the following amendment:
Strike out after the word "dollars," in the
tenth line, to the word "the" in the thirteenth
line, and insert:
"Nor shall the legislature hereafter create
any debt, or pledge the credit of the State, ex-
cept for the purpose of education, as hereinafter
may be provided, to or for the use of any associ-
ation or corporation, or for or on account of any
work of internal improvement, but after the pay-
ment of the public debt as provided by law, the
revenue which may accrue from the State's in-
vestments in works of internal improvement,
may be appropriated to the improvement of exis-
ting, and the construction of additional works,"
The question then recurred on the amendment
of Mr. SPENCER.
Pending the question on this amendment;
The Convention adjourned until to-morrow at
ten o'clock.
DEFERRED BEBATE.
In Convention, Feb. 11, 1851.
Remarks of Mr. DASHIELL on his amendment
to the proamble of the bill of rights, proposing to
add the words "representing the counties and
city of Baltimore."
Mr. DASHIELL said:
That the gentleman from the city of Baltimore,
(Mr. Gwinn,) desires to know what theory, he,
(Mr. D.,) proposed to inculcate by the amend-
ment he had offered. He would say, the amend-
ment itself, developed his theory; and he was
somewhat surprised at the inquiry. The remarks
also which he had made at the introduction of
his amendment gave a further and fuller exposi-
tion of the same. What further explanation the
gentleman desired, he could not conjecture, un-
less he wished, at this time, to enter upon the
discussion of the great question of representation.
The amendment which he had proposed, contains
nothing but a plain and notable fact, which he
presumed the gentleman would not undertake to
dispute or deny; and from that fact, but one true
theory can be deduced, and all others are spuri-
ous. Now, the gentleman from the city of Bal-
timore, with a suspicious fear, seems to discover
in the amendment, a phantom, and starts at it,
as if it were his "evil genius." Ah, Mr. Presi-
dent, truth, that mighty and faithful reality, is
sometimes startling, and calculated to inflict much
terror; and it is manifest the gentleman betrays
much of its power working upon him, and evi-
dently to his disquietude.
Mr. D. said, that he was aware that his amend-
ment conflicted much with the fond notions of
some, in regard to the question of representation) |
