your own representatives have heretofore often,
and may again in future, under this influence,
participate in legislation which you look back to
with deep aversion and regret.
It does seem to me, that if any portions of the
State, more than others, require this protection,
these are the small counties and the weak inter-
ests. In addition to the other dangers against
which the executive negative may serve as their
shield, it would probably so far satisfy Baltimore
and the large counties, as to avert a renewal of
agitation with a view to obtain representation
according to population.
I came here, sir, as I said before, in hope that
this Convention would limit and define strictly
the powers granted to our governmental agent,
bill I have found myself almost alone in the ex-
tent to which I desire to carry these limitations,
and of necessity have yielded to the prevalent
doctrines Most of us. sir. seek in the organic
law. to guard only against the abuses heretofore
experienced, or clearly foreseen, forgetting that
those which have occurred were not foreseen
when the old Constitution was formed, and that
many of the most prominent, are considered by
able men, unconstitutional usurpations by the
Legislature. Your General Assembly, you have
determined, although prohibited from exercising
certain specified powers, shall possess vast and
indefinite authority in most respects. It behooves
you therefore, gentlemen of the Convention, to
provide some effectual supervisory power by
which any extravagant action of your legislature
may be suspended until time for reflection, and
expression of the public opinion may have been
afforded.
Constitute, then, your Chief Executive Magis-
trate the paternal guardian, whose veto may
shield you from oppression, while it can inflict
no harm. Deprive him, (and you shall have my
cordial and earnest co-operation.) of that weapon.
dangerous to friends as well as foes, which here
and elsewhere, has been styled "the club of
Hercules." Leave not even the shattered handle
of that obnoxious implement, (patronage.) so
destructive of political virtue and public morality
in his hand; but place there instead, an aegis,
broad enough to cover and protect not only his
own person and place, but also the rights, interests
and dignity of the whole, and of every part of
old Maryland.
I am sorry, sir, that some more able champion
did not undertake the task which I have so lame-
ly performed, and I will close by reiterating the
appeal with which I commenced. Do not, Mr
President, and gentlemen of the. Convention, per-
mit yourselves to be influenced by prejudices
naturally consequent on the feeble and unskilful
manner in which I have advocated this proposition.
But weigh the subject upon its own merits,
direct to its investigation the resources of your
own minds, give heed to the lessons which the
experience of other States, and the oracular wis-
dom of departed Statesmen teach; and finally.
in firming your conclusion, permit no bias arising
from present political associations or reminis-
cences of gone by party struggles, to warp your |
judgment on deciding what, for weal or for woe,
may affect you and your children's children.
The question was then stated to be upon
agreeing to the amendment of Mr, McHENRY.
On motion of Mr. SHRIVER, the Convention
was called.
On motion of Mr. JOHN NEWCOMER, all fur-
ther proceedings under the call were dispensed
with.
The question again recurring on the amend-
ment of Mr. McHENRY,
Mr. PHELPS demanded the yeas and nays,
which were ordered, and being taken, resulted
as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Howard, Buchanan, Welch,
Sherwood, of Talbot, Colston, George, Shriver,
Biser, Annan, McHenry, Magraw, Nelson, Car-
ter, Stewart, of Caroline, Gwinn, Brent of Bal-
timore city, Sherwood of Baltimore city, Ware,
Michael Newcomer, Anderson, Weber, Hollidy,
Shower, and Brown— 24.
Negative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't, Morgan,
Blakistone, Hopewell. Ricaud, Chambers of
Kent, Donaldson, Dorsey, Wells, Randall, Sell-
man, Sollers Ridgely John Dennis, James U.
Dennis, Dashiell, Williams, Hicks, Hodson,
Goldsborough, Eccleston, Phelps, Bowie, Tuck,
Sprigg. Dirickson. McMaster, Hearn, Stephenson,
Thawley, Schley, Fiery, Neill, John New-
comer, Davis, Kilgour, Waters Slicer, Fitzpatrick,
Smith and Cockey—41.
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. DAVIS said that some time ago he gave
notice that he would move to reconsider the vote
by which was adopted the article moved by the
gentleman from Baltimore county. (Mr. Ridgely,)
regulating the fees of clerks and registers, ma-
king them salaried officers instead of bring com-
pensated by fees and perquisites. He now moved
to take up this motion to reconsider, and would
have done so before had the gentleman from
Baltimore county been in his seat That gen-
tleman now being present, he would avail him-
self of this opportunity to call up the motion.
I object, (said Mr D,) to this article, because
of the manner in which it was passed. The
gentleman matures his plan, expresses his own
views upon it, and then, under the operation of
the previous question, calls upon us to vote with-
out consideration, without discussion or without
amendment. This course seems to me to defeat
the very object fur which we were sent here;
namely, consultation with each other, advise
ment, reflection and deliberation I cannot, for
one, quietly submit to the practical operation of
an iron rule, which was intended for no such ob-
ject, and which practically defeats the will of
the people in calling this Convention.
Secondly, I want to hear the views of experi-
enced lawyers as to the practical effect of this
proposed change in the mode of compensating
our clerks. It seems to me that it will operate
as a premium to litigious persons to go to law.
It is unfortunately the case that we have in al-
most every community, persons who are fond of
disputes— fond of law—but who are deterred
from going to law by us expense. But the mo- |
