care whether the contract was such as could be
enforced or not. The principle of morality was
the same. The State was bound—any honest
man was bound to pay an honest debt—the State
was bound to carry out its pledger faith to the
citizens of the State He did not wish to do in-
justice to any portion of the State. He had so
drawn the proposition as to give to the city of
Baltimore every dollar to which she was entitled
under the several acts of appropriation. He did
not propose to divide it according to the rule of
1833, but only proposed that so much should be
divided by the rule as was required by the Legislature,
and as had been contracted for between
the Legislature and the State. He would then
go on to divide the balance in direct conformity
with the several Acts of Assembly and the reso-
lutions which had been adopted on that subject.
He believed that in this Convention, in the State
of Maryland, even in the city of Baltimore, re-
presented by the gentleman, if the question
were submitted to them, that ninety-nine out of
a hundred would be in favor of carrying out the
pledged faith of the State.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city, did not exactly
understand the various acts of Assembly,
but he was willing to leave the matter, as it
stood, subject to legislative action. But the
gentleman from St. Mary's, [Mr. Blakistone,]
had come to obtain constitutional protection, for
that good faith which as supposed to exist,
based upon the existing legislation of the State
of Maryland. If the gentleman wanted a con-
stitutional sanction or guarantee for the distribution
of this fund, provided by existing laws,
he should have an equitable one. He [Mr. B ]
did not desire to violate any contract, and would
acknowledge any moral obligation. But this
idea of moral obligation did not necessarily re-
sult, from the fact that laws were passed creating
a fund for distribution, and distributing it in a
certain way. He did not see how posterity
could be bound to this distribution, nor did he
see how it could amount to an obligation to
continue it for the future. Because the Legis-
lature, in 1833, raised a fund by taxation, to be
distributed one half according lo the white pop-
ulation of the counties, and the other half,
equally into twenty-one parts, among the counties
and the city of Baltimore, without reference
to population, were they bound, for all time to
come to continue this thing?
Mr, BLAKISTONE, explained, that the resolution
of 1833 was not based upon any taxation
law which had been passed.—
Mr, BRENT. So much the better.
Mr. BLAKISTONE. But for the distribution of
the fund arising from the bonuses paid by banks.
Mr. BRENT thought this was so much the
better for his argument, as the fact stated, de-
stroyed all idea of a contract. Then in 1834,
when it is said the delegation from Baltimore
came down to the Legislature to secure the
passage of an act to construct the Baltimore and
Ohio Railroad, the Susquehanna Railroad, and
the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal—then it was
that the distribution of the school fund was or- |
dered in reference to and on the basis of the
act of 1833, and that fund, existed as I now un-
derstand before that time, at least in part.
Mr. BLAKISTONE said, that he would go a lit-
tle further, and tell the gentleman that, so far
as one of the counties was concerned, the coun-
ty of Baltimore, she had, by a special act of the
Legislature, received her proportion of the fund)
and had invested it in stocks.
Mr, BRENT understood the facts of the case
sufficiently, in regard to one portion of the
funds, they were not created by any original
law, distributing it in any particular way, but
the fund had been already created If the Le-
gislature chose to pass a law distributing it,
what obligation was there on the Convention or
on the Legislature to continue this distribution ?
No contract could be made by legislative act re-
quiring this thing. So in regard to the fund,
created, he supposed, by the payment of bonuses,
at the time the delegation from the city of Bal-
timore came down to the Legislature. He un-
derstood that an additional fund wan then crea-
ted by the law of 1834, which law required the
funds to be distributed in accordance with the
law of 1833. Was there any contract in this?
If they sought to disturb a distribution which
had been ordered by the very law creating the
fund, then it might be said with some plausibility,
but no legal truth, that they were interfering with
a vested right. He only proposed to pay that in
future, this fund, thus created, shall be distribu-
ted equitably. He said that there could be no
contract in this case between the counties and
the State of Maryland. Independent of the de-
cision of the Supreme Court in relation to the
appropriation of one million of dollars to Wash-
ington county, the difficulties in the way of such
a distribution being a contract, were numerous.
How could there be any legal or moral obligation
on the Legislature or on the Convention to con-
tinue this unjust, and inequitable distribution?
The counties then were in power. This matter
was forced upon the people of Maryland, upon
the principle that one-half should be distributed
among the counties, the smallest county being
entitled to an equal share with the largest. Car-
oline and Calvert counties would receive equal
proportions with the large and populous counties
of Baltimore and Frederick, and Baltimore city.
There was injustice in this, and were they to perpetuate
it ?
He admitted that as to what had been done in
the way of past distribution, he would not disturb.
But prospectively they could distribute the whole
fund upon the great and broad principle of equi-
ty. Return to the counties and city of Baltimore
first, the proportion paid in by them respective-
ly, and secondly, distribute the residue upon the
basis of white population. He could vote for no
proposition which had not this fur its object—to
do away with this unjust distribution among the
the counties merely as counties; and looking alone
to a distribution according to the basis of white
inhabitants who were to enjoy the benefits of the
fund through the whole State.
Mr. BROWN said: |
