Mr. DORSEY did not see how the division of
Anne Arundel county would increase the weight
and influence of the city of Baltimore, in the
amount of representation it would give to How-
ard district. There was not such a strong sym-
pathy between Howard county and Baltimore
city, as to justly such an opinion. He had,
however, no peculiar interest or feeling upon the
subject. He believed that it was the wish of a
majority of the people of Anne Arundel county,
that a division should take place.
The yeas and nays were then taken on the
motion of MCMASTER to reconsider, with the
following result:
Affirmative—Messrs. Ricaud, Chambers, of Kent,
Mitchell, Sollers, John Dennis, James U. Dennis,
Dashiell, Williams, Hicks, Hudson, Eccleston,
Phelps, Sprigg, Dirickson, McMaster, Carter,
and Davis—16.
Negative—Messrs. Chapman, President, Mor-
gan, Donaldson, Dorsey, Wells, Randall, Sell-
man, Howard, Buchanan, Welch, Ridgely. Sher-
wood, of Talbot, Colston, Goldsborough, McCullough,
George, Shriver, Biser, Annan, Ste-
phenson, McHenry, Magraw, Nelson, Thawley,
Stewart of Caroline, Gwinn, Brent of Baltimore
city, Sherwood of Baltimore city, Ware, Schley,
Fiery, Neill, John Newcomer, Michael New-
comer Kilgour, Waters, Anderson, Weber, Hollyday,
Slicer, Fitzpatrick, Smith, Shower, Cock-
ey and Brown—46.
So the Convention refused to reconsider their
vote,
The Convention then resumed the considera-
tion of the order of the day, being the report of
the committee on the legislative department.
The President stated the question to be on
agreeing to the motion of Mr. DONALDSON, to re-
consider the fourth section of the report.
Mr. DONALDSON said that the gentleman from
Frederick, [Mr. Thomas,] who bad objected to
this section being reconsidered, was not present,
and he did not wish to have the question taken
therefore, merely renew the motion, that on to-
morrow he would move a reconsideration of the
4th section of the report.
Mr. BROWN renewed the notice of his inten-
tion to move a reconsideration of the 17th sec-
tion of said report.
On motion of Mr. MCHENRY, the Convention
proceeded to consider the report of the commit-
tee on the Executive Department,
The question pending was on the following
amendment offered by Mr. MCHENRY as an ad-
ditional section to the report:
Sec. Every bill, resolution or act, which shall
have passed the General Assembly, shall before
it becomes a law, be presented to the Governor;
if he approve he shall sign it, but if not, he shall
return it with his objections, to that House in
which it shall have originated, who shall enter
the objections at large on their journal and pro-
ceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration
two-thirds of each house shall agree to
pass such bill, resolution, or act, it shall become
a law. But in all such cases the votes of both |
houses shall be taken by yeas and nays, which
shall be entered on their respective journals. If
any hill, resolution or act, shall not he returned
by the Governor within five days after it shall
have been presented to him. the same shall be-
come a law in like manner as if he had signed it,
unless the General Assembly by its adjourment,
prevent its return, in which case it shall not be
a law.
Mr. MCHENRY said:
You, Mr. President, and members of the Convention,
will bear me witness that I have not
been in the habit of occupying unnecessarily
your time. Conscious that opinions are formed
on mature reflection, and are influenced by considerations
which can be more effectively brought
to bear in social intercourse than in public de-
bates; well knowing that eloquence of the high-
est order seldom changes a vote in deliberative
bodies; it has accorded with my perceptions of
utility as well as with my deficiencies as a
speaker, to have obtruded my views rarely in
open session, though by no means inactive or
listless, while the arduous task of "framing a
new Constitution and form of government" has
been tediously progressing.
But it seems now absolutely my duty, as the
mover of the important provisions under consideration,
to endeavor to develop the reasons and
motives, which induced me to bring it before this
enlightened body. I rely, however, much more
on the intrinsic merits of the proposition itself,
and on the patriotism and freedom from preju-
dice of those whom I have the honor to address,
than on any argument which I may be able to
urge or any force which my unskilful advocacy
may possess.
We have before us no new question. It is
much older than this country, much older even
than our knowledge of the races from whom we
race our descent ! The idea of checking the
legislative power, by the veto of one man responsible
to the whole people, originated in re-
publican Rome, where it was found a must effici-
ent safe-guard against the encroachments of the
patricians, a very potent means of resistance to
the oppressions of the dominant class!
I will not attempt to trace this essential feature,
in nearly all the constitutional governments, of
which we have any knowledge, through the vari-
ous plans, in which it has been exhibited in dif-
ferent countries and ages. But, before passing
to our own times and country, I will remark
that in England, the veto power, before it fell
into disuse, was employed oftener to protect the
people against the nobles than to guard the pre-
rogatives of the throne; more frequently to repel,
in behalf of the commonality, the usurpations of
the aristocracy, than for the security of the
crown itself.
The reasons why this salutary check upon Le-
gislation was not engrafted on the Constitution
of Maryland, in 1776, are very obvious. The
Governor, by that Constitution, was the mere
creature, as well as the Executive agent of the
Legislature. Of course he could not interfere,
by his veto, any effective check upon its action. |
