did not mean to say that candidates were to
blame. Generally they could not help it without
declining the contest—and there were many—
most of the cases the other way. indeed the
slate of things would be deplorable, if it were
not so, for then fraud and corruption would po-
lute all our institutions. If the people in the
masses made the elections, there would he little
weight in the objection. But, unhappily, this is
so only in theory; all elections are more or less
of a partizan character, and the people at the
polls too often merely register the edicts of party
leaders. Caucus nominations too generally make
the appointments. Mr. T. did not object to such
conventions, but he alluded now to the improper
means sometimes employed in these bodies by
designing partizans, to accomplish personal or
political ends. In such cases they become the
sources of favoritism and intrigue, if not of
corruption. He could not, therefore, agree with
the gentleman from Baltimore county, as to the
purity of the waters in which our candidates
have bathed.
Mr. T, would vote fur the amendment of the
gentlemen from Dorchester, in order that offices
might be filled by candidates clear of all suspi-
cion of having acted here so as to promote their
own aggrandisement.
Mr. JENIFER said, that as gentlemen had given
in their experience, he would make a lew re-
marks himself. If the gentleman's observation
had satisfied him that being a member of this
Convention was in effect looking to ulterior ob-
jects, then his proposition was right, and the
gentleman had placed himself right. If, on the
contrary, he thought that no member had given
votes with any ulterior object, then it would be
casting a stigma on them. He (Mr. J.,) would
give no countenance to a proposition containing
this as an expression of the opinion of the Con-
vention—one which would cast a stigma on him-
self, if he should vote to disfranchise gentlemen
of the highest order of talent and unimpeachable.
character, merely because they were members of
this Convention. How did they come here? By
the people; and because they were here, it was
attempted to disqualify them for office for a term
of years. If he voted for any proposition, it
would be for the one offered by the gentleman
from Calvert, [ Mr. Sollers,] to disfranchise them
forever because it would show; that they had
misrepresented their constituents, and were un-
worthy to hold office hereafter. He would go
further. This could have no good effect. The
people would say, and justly say, we sent men
there whom we thought trustworthy, but by their
acts, they have evinced a consciousness of their
own unworthiness.
Mr. J. said he might have voted for a similar
proposition at the commencement of the session,
because he was willing to indulge gentlemen in
their protestations that they come here free and
purged from all disposition to create offices in
which they would be interested. But the session
now was nearly over, and they had done almost
all the harm that they could do—indeed, he
doubted whether they could no any more. But,
49 |
should this stigma be fixed upon the members of
this Convention, they should also have attached
to them something by which they may hereafter
be known—like the Romans of old, when they
turned loose wicked animals, they guarded the
community against them, by letting it he known—
"habet foenum in cornu."
Mr. HICKS only had to say, " evil be to him
who evil thinks." It was an old and a trite saying.
" set a rogue to catch a rogue," He was
perfectly sincere in proposing this amendment.
Had they not already prohibited members, from
accepting the emoluments of any office which
might be raised or increased by this Convention?
Had they not attempted to put prohibition upon
prohibition ? If they had the power to restrict
one, bad they not the power to restrict all ? Was
there an individual in this body who did not know
that since they had been here, a good deal had
been said about that nice office, and this nice of-
fice? They could not even get the support of
the people at home, who seemed to think that
they were here wasting their money and making
places for themselves to be filled hereafter, becoming
distinguished as they were. If they were
so self-sacrificing, as many of them thought they
were, let them show their faith by their works.
He believed this would be creditable to themselves
and gratifying to the people, for they would
then think that they were in earnest. If ever he
should desire any thing, he would go to the peo-
ple to give it to him. In sober seriousness, he
hoped that a proposition like the one he had just
presented, would be engrafted upon the Constitution.
He believed they owed it to themselves
and to the people, to incorporate it in the Con-
stitution.
Mr. SOLLERS. What possible principle can
the gentleman find in making the limitation five
years?
Mr. HICKS. I consider it the principle of self-
denial to ourselves and evidence of confidence in
the people, and would have preferred it longer.
Mr. SOLLERS. Say, forever.
Mr. HICKS said yes. but would rather have a
half a loaf than no bread at all
Mr. SOLLERS, Perhaps you will get the whole
loaf if you will try.
Mr. JENIFER. The gentleman should say that
we should have no office under the government,
or be elected to either branch of the Legislature.
Mr. MCHENRY presumed that there was no
important business ready for their action. He
presumed that no man having the interests of the
people at heart would wish to consume the time of
this body in such movements as the one which
they hail before them, unless it was because they
had no business, really, to transact. It did seem
to him, without any imputation on the motives of
the mover, that this was the most barefaced appeal
to Buncombe that could he made in this
body. Believing this, he would move to lay the
whole subject upon the table.
Mr. McH., at the request of Mr. HICKS, withdrew
his motion.
Mr, HICKS said:
That he had no idea of taking the gentleman |
