clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Proceedings and Debates of the 1850 Constitutional Convention
Volume 101, Volume 2, Debates 393   View pdf image
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space
393
present mode of appointment to a joint ballot
vote. From what source could they best derive
power? Why, surely from the great body of the
people. He went for popular elections in such
cases, rather than joint ballot. For years we had
been struggling to conquer the disposition to give
appointing power to the Legislative branch of
our Government. We first had joint ballot, and
afterwards we gave to the people the power to
elect the Governor. Now, one of the prime—the
principle cause for calling this Convention, was
to give the power to the people of electing public
officers generally. As he had stated before, if
you stripped the Governor of his patronage in
other respects to return it to the people, why he
[Mr. T.,] would undertake to say, that there
would be a hundred-fold more in taking this power
from the Legislature; to return it to the people
also. The whole appointing power of the Go-
vernor was not of more public moment than the
appointing power of these agents who repre-
sented the State in those internal improvement
companies. It was admitted that the Chesapeake
and Ohio canal company was managed wholly in
effect by these State's agents as they voted for
the president and directors, since this State hold
a majority of the stock.
Now, he would ask, could this Convention vote
to transfer all this immense power any where but
to the. people" He agreed with the gentleman,
that we should look very cautiously to see whether
we should give it to the whole people, voting by
a general ticket or by districts. He was in favor
of districting.
He was opposed to the multiplication of officers,
and in this case proposed to make no in-
crease Five agents were now authorized. He
proposed four. He supposed that they ought to
be allowed a sum sufficient to pay their expenses,
which was what they now received. This board
of commissioners, which he proposed to establish
he did not intend, should be in attendance at all
meetings of the President and Directors of these
internal improvement companies, but should oc-
casionally go there to vote for officers; and the
chief question which ought to be considered by
this Convention, was whether the stuck held by
the State, should be voted by the agents elected
by the people, or chosen by the concurring vote
of the two Houses of the Legislature. He was
for the broad platform of the public will, and this
could not be had from a Senate and House of
Delegates, organized without proper reference to
population. One word in reference to a note
which had just been put into his hand. Some
gentleman had done him the kindness to say in
this note, that the bill did not provide for the appointment
of the directors of the Susquehanna
railroad company. He did not propose this, tor
the simple reason that the charter of that com-
pany did not give us the power to do it. We
could not go beyond the charter requirements.
We must conform to the charter. According to
the charter of the Baltimore and Ohio railroad
company, and the Susquehanna railroad com-
pany, the State was authorised to name a certain
number of Directors in those companies respec-
50
tively. These directors are now appointed by
the concurring vote of the Legislature.
He desired that some other gentleman, coming
fom that part of Maryland most interested in the
management of these Rail Road companies,
should submit a proposition—a separate and in-
dependent one on that subject It might he a
subsequent and independent clause inserted in
the Constitution, or it might be moved as an
amendment to the one now under consideration.
And, he trusted that the appointment of these
directors also would be so provided for, as that
they should be responsible not to one branch of
the Legislature of Maryland, but to the people
of all Maryland.
That was what we of the populous parts of the
State came here to claim. We may struggle
and not get it, but our constituents will ultimately
have it. Represented as we are to be in the Sen-
ate by one member from each city and county
without regard to population, it was not to be
supposed that the appointment of these agents and
directors by the Senate would be submitted to.
This could not be expected.
Would gentlemen coming from the small coun-
ties agree that this great moneyed power—growing
out of the management of these corporations,
should be virtually left in the Senate alone? it
is a great fundamental question at issue between
the people and the Senate.
His proposition was one, he thought well de-
vised to make the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal
Company's Canal totally free from all control of
a rival interest in the State. And, he was per-
fectly free to confess, that he thought the Rail
Road interest ought not to have power to appoint
the officers who were to have charge of the Canal.
He wished to have the State of Maryland
so districted and arranged that neither one nor
the other interest—the Rail Road or the Canal
interest—could crush the the interest of the State
by crippling, in a contest tor supremacy, the pos-
perity of each other,
Mr. MERRICK made some remarks, which will
be publised hereafter.
Mr. CHAMBERS had intended to be an attentive
listener, in the hope of receiving information on a
subject which he did not profess to have studied.
Quite unexpectedly he found himself personally
involved in the consideration of the subject, and
therefore he would say as much as was necessary
to vindicate himself. When the gentleman from
Frederick, [Mr. Thomas,] was elaborating his
system of districting the State for the election
of the board of public works, he enumerated
amongst them one district for the Eastern Shore.
In the belief, said Mr. C., that I was doing ser-
vice to the gentleman, and making his measure
more acceptable at the close of his expression,
"the Eastern Shore," I said, in an under tone and
for his ear, "and Harford." I supposed he would
at once have said, "strike out Harford." My
reason for this opinion was that the same thing
had but just before occurred. When engaged
on the Executive bill, the gentleman had a pro-
position for districts, of which one contained the
Eastern Shore counties and Harford. A sugges-


 
clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Proceedings and Debates of the 1850 Constitutional Convention
Volume 101, Volume 2, Debates 393   View pdf image
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  October 06, 2023
Maryland State Archives