jority, and the levying of a tax when the debt
was contracted, would be a sufficient security.
The gentleman from Cecil objected to the restric-
tion of the power of appropriating public money
for private and local purposes, because it was in
effect an admission that the power now existed
in the Legislature to make such appropriations.
After this power had been exercised for so many
years by the Legislature, and acquiesced in by
the people, it was loo late to say that a clause to
regulate and restrict its application conferred the
power. To illustrate this point, Mr. G. made
references to various appropriations which had
been made. at different periods, for private and
local purposes. He, (Mr. G.,) had objected to
the provision in the amendment of the gentleman
from Cecil, authorizing appropriations for the
necessary expenditures of the Government. He
had made that objection because these expendi-
tures were not sufficiently defined by the word
"necessary," The courts had decided that the
word admitted of a larger latitude of construc-
tion than he was willing to permit, embracing
such expenditures as were for convenient pur-
poses. Under such an interpretation as this, the
Legislature might consider themselves empower-
ed to appropriate money to any amount they
might think fit, for such expenses of State as they
might determine to be necessary. He had no
great objection to granting this power, provided
the objects for which the appropriations were to
be made should be clearly specified so as to guard
against any abuse. The gentleman from Cecil
objected further to the proposition of his friend
and colleague, [Mr. George,] that there was no
safety in voting for the last branch of it, although
he indicated a willingness to do so, because the
first part of the proposition might not afterwards
be adopted; and he desired that the two branches
should be taken together. And in consequence
of these objections, the gentleman from Cecil had
thrown all his great powers into the scale against
the proposition.
CREDIT OF THE STATE.
Remarks of Mr. GRASON, March 5, 1851, on the
amendment of Mr. GEORGE.
Mr. GRASON said:
That if the propositon of his colleague could
be fairly interpreted as it had been by the
gentleman from Prince George's, [Mr. Bowie,] it
would present a serious objection to its adoption,
because its effect would be to prevent the pay-
ment of any just and proper claim against the
State. But he did not think it could be properly
susceptible of such interpretation. The inten-
tion of the amendment of his colleague was to
prevent the Legislature from loaning the public
money or the public credit for the use of individ-
uals or associations, but not that the Legislature
should not have the power to pay any just debts
due to individuals. He was neither a. lawyer nor
ajudge, but to him it appeared quite clear that
the amendment could have no such effect. The
gentleman from Prince George's said it would
prevent any appropriations for hospitals and uni-
versities. The universities stood on a different |
foundation, and would not be touched by the
amendment. And as to the various hospitals
which have sprung up in the city of Baltimore,
he would like to be informed how they became
State institutions. He did not know the amend-
ment of his colleague would prevent any further
appropriations for them. But it it would, he had
no objection. The amendment suggested by the
gentleman from Prince George's would let in a
number of claimants on the Treasury, Internal
improvement companies might bring in a num-
ber of claims. The proposition of Ins colleague
would not prevent the Legislature from redeem-
ing the pledged faith of the State; and he would
go against the adoption of any amendment of
doubtful construction. The people had decided
against any more internal improvements by the
State. Wherever lateral roads are necessary
they can be constructed by capitalists and others
who have an interest in making them.
Remarks of Mr. GRASON, March 6, 1851, on the
amendment of Mr. DAVIS, in relation to appropri-
ations for purposes of Education.
Mr. GRASON had only a few words to say in
reply to the gentleman from Montgomery, [Mr.
Davis] He did not desire to be understood as
occupying a position opposed to some plan of
education; but he was opposed to taxing the peo-
ple for the purpose of creating an expensive sys-
tem, or for establishing or extending corporations
for the purpose. But the gentleman from Mont-
gomery was mistaken as to the meaning of the
proposition of Ins friend and colleague. What
are the words of the amendment?
Here Mr. Grason read the amendment.
It was not intended to prohibit the Legislature
from establishing a plan of education. He knew
that the subject would come up in a report from
the committee on Education. His colleague had
no more idea of preventing an appropriation for
education, than for training the militia, or any
other indispensable object. It was intended to
restrict the Legislature, so as to prevent the ap-
propriation of money for the we of corporations
associations or individuals, but not to prevent the
education of the children in the State, But how
did the amendment of his colleague read, after
the amendment of the gentleman from Mont-
gomery was attached to it? It then nut only em-
powers, but actually invites the Legislature to
create corporations for the establishment of a
great system of education. Although he entire-
ly agreed in the great principle laid down by the
gentleman from Montgomery, he was directly
opposed to, and indeed he did not know that the
gentleman intended his proposition to have that
effect, the creation of these corporations. We
have now two colleges in the State; and with
these he would not interfere; but he would neither
vote for establishing nor extending corporations
for the purpose of building up an extravagant
system, and he would vote against it now. Not,
he repeated, that he was opposed to the princi-
ple, and he would go with the gentleman from
Montgomery in the adoption of any general mea- |
