city, Presstman, Ware, John Newcomer, Michael
Newcomer, Davis, Weber and Slicer—32.
So the vote wag reconsidered.
The question then recurred on the amendment
of Mr. BLAKISTONE.
Mr. JENIFER said:
The amendment had better lie over, that it
might be printed, and that the members might
have an opportunity to examine it. He had voted
for it, but he had strong doubts about it. He
moved it lie over until to-morrow.
If the question was taken now, he must vote
against it.
Mr. WEEMS moved to postpone its considera-
tion until Wednesday next.
Some conversation followed, and several sug-
gestions were made, that the matter should
again come up to-morrow.
Some conversation followed, and several suggestions
were made that the matter should again
come up to-morrow.
Mr WEEMS said, he must necessarily be ab-
sent to-morrow, and he hoped, therefore, that
the Convention would either act on the question
to-day, or postpone it until next Wednesday, by
which time, he would be here. He desired to
record his vote upon it.
Mr. WEEMS said:
That he had the honor of a seat in the legisla-
ture when the tax law was passed. He claimed
to be the author of the sixty-fourth section of the
law as it now stood. He offered this section as an
amendment to the original bill and it wan ac-
cepted by Mr. BOWIE, chairman of the commit-
tee of ways and means, by whom the bill was re-
ported. It was his, [Mr. W's.,] deliberate opinion
that the bill would not have become a law at that
session, had not this section been adopted. The
people' expected that the faith of the State, as
pledged by that law, would be redeemed. He was
in favor of carrying out the provisions of the law.
Here Mr. W. read the sixty-fourth section,
and stated, in conclusion, that he agreed in all
which had fallen from the gent email from St.
Mary's, (Mr. Blakistone,) as to the propriety of
carrying out the provisions of the law faithfully.
Mr, CHAMBERS said, the practice which had, of
late become prevalent, was likely to lead to dif-
ficulties. A gentleman rose, presented a proposition,
assigned all the reasons he could find to
sustain it, and before he quit the floor, moved the
previous question. No room for explanation or
correction was allowed.
Now he supposed many gentlemen had voted
entirely on the faith of what had fallen from his
friend from St. Mary's, [Mr Blakistone.] He
had, with his usual animation and earnestness,
urged the absolute and binding force of the law
of 184-, in regard to the mode of distribution.
His, remarks would lead us to believe, what the
gentleman seems to suppose is the fact, that the
law of 1841, is the only, or at all events, the earli-
est one on this subject.
No mistake could be greater. There were
other and earlier laws, pledging portions of these
funds, with equal solemnity. He did not mean
to go into the subject a large. A gentleman from
57 |
Charles, [Mr. Merrick,] not now present, had
examined this subject, and had given us, on a
former occasion, the evidence of his investiga-
tions. We ought to wait and receive more full
information, and he therefore urged a postpone-
ment of the subject.
Mr, THOMAS said he hoped the question would
be postponed. There are other pledges of this
internal improvement fund, than that which had
been referred to by the gentleman from St.
Mary's. He adverted to the joint resolution con-
cerning the two million of loan to the Chesapeake
and Ohio canal company, in which he said there
was a rule laid down lor the distribution of the
revenue from that source, different from the rule
now proposed. He referred also to the impor-
tant question which had arose between Washing-
ton county and the Baltimore and Ohio railroad
company. It had been agreed that a large sum
was to be given to Washington county, in case
the railroad did not pass through it. I he case
instituted to recover that sum, went to the court
of appeals. The court decided that the Legislature
had not the power to make a contract of
this kind with the comities.
Mr CHAMBERS explained that the court had
decided that that was not a contract of binding
force; not that the parties had not power to make
a contract.
Mr. THOMAS said he was not now going to
argue the question. He thought the effect of
making this transfer, ought to be well considered
before going into it. There was an antagonism
of interests growing up out of our system of in-
ternal improvements, which ought to be weighed
before a provision was inserted in the organic
law on the subject. A constitutional provision
cannot be changed, and the parties, even if dis-
posed, might thus be debarred from making a
compromise, which the law and the joint resolu-
tion he had referred to would not forbid.
Mr. THOMAS then moved to postpone the con-
sideration of the motion to Wednesday week.
Mr. WEEMS assented.
Mr. BLAKISTONE designated Monday week.
Mr. THOMAS said that day would be accepta-
ble to him.
Mr. McHENRY suggested that the bill and
amendments should, in the interval, be printed.
Mr, WEEMS accepted the suggestion as a part
of his motion.
Some conversation followed.
Mr. JOHN NEWCOMER called for a division of
the question—first on postponement.
The consideration of the amendment was post-
poned to Monday week.
The question recurring on the motion to print,
It was taken and agreed to.
Mr. LEE gave notice that, at the proper lime,
he should offer the following as an additional sec-
tion to the report:
"Sec. 43, The General Assembly shall, at its
second session after the adoption of this constitution,
provide by law against the sate of any real
estate to satisfy any judgment or other lien in
cases where the yearly rents and profits, beyond
the payment of taxes, and the necessary repairs,
|
