and their common constituency. He would say
to his colleague, that no impeachment of his mo-
tives was designed, but he was surprised that a
subject having no connection with the issue, and
to be decided by a different tribunal, had been
introduced.
Mr. HARBINE replied, he was never aware that
his colleague intended to impute anything wrong
to him, but he did use the words "for effect elsewhere."
He, [Mr H.,] still adhered to his
former position, that all public officers ought to
be elected by the people, and he maintained that
was the sentiment of the voters of Washington
county Now if these commissioners were pub-
lie officers, or were embraced in that term, and
he understood the desire of his constituents to he
to elect all such by the people, of course this
class must he included. He was aware that in
discussing that question, not all the various offi-
cers were specified, nor was this particular class,
but it was certainly included in the general doc-
trine. Their functions and duties were too im-
portant to escape an election by the people, al-
though his colleague said there were not twenty
persons in Washington county, that knew any
thing about the State's agents. Why there were
more than that many agents and officeholders
along the line of canal in the county, and they
certainly knew to whom they were indirectly in-
debted for their places. The gentleman had
made a great mistake. The people of Washing-
ton were too deeply interested in the future
benefits to be derived from the public works, to
be so profoundly ignorant in regard to the management
of the State's interest in them. They
have paid too much tax to know nothing about
these matters. A board of public works had
been spoken of by all parties. It had been advo-
cated by at least one newspaper in Washington,
nor should it be forgotten that it constituted a
part of the platform of the late whig candidate
for Governor, and that gentleman received three
hundred of a majority in their county. Now all
this went to show that public attention had been
turned to this matter and that the gentleman had
by far underrated the intelligence of his constitu-
ents on this question. Put the question to them,
whether they would prefer electing the commis-
sioners to the present system, and he did not doubt
there would be a very general affirmative. They
believed in the doctrine of the election of officers
directly by, and their accountability to the peo-
ple, else he was very much mistaken. How the
gentleman came to introduce the question of re-
presentation into this discussion, he could not
tell. It had nothing to do with the matter under
consideration. He denied the right of any mem-
ber of this body, to question his consistency, or
accuse him of violating the will of his constituents
on that or any other subject. That was no man's
business but his own, and those who sent him
here. With them he was willing to settle. Yes,
upon that subject he was willing to go home with
the gentleman and meet their common constitu-
ency. There was no fear with him that his
course would not meet with their approval. But
in thus attacking him, the gentleman had forgot-
ten one thing relating to that subject, and had |
given "the unkndest cut of all" to his whig col-
leagues who voted with him on that question.
Mr. GWINN rose to a point of order. When
the gentleman from Washington, [Mr Schley,]
had the floor, he had left the direct merits of the
question before the Convention, to discuss the re-
lative operation of the representation basis. Now
that was not the subject before the Convention,
and he, [Mr. G.,] therefore, called him to order.
Mr. MORGAN said, that heretofore it had been
the practice of the Convention, whenever any
proposition was before it, to permit the utmost
latitude to the speaker occupying the floor.—
There had been many things introduced in de-
bate here, which were not germain to the sub-
ject under consideration; nevertheless they had
been tolerated. But, in the present instance, a
gentleman had given it as his opinion that such
would be the operation of the proposed new reg-
ulation, for the election of State agents for the
public works, that not one-third of the popula-
tion of the State would turn out and vote for
them. The remarks of the gentleman in his
[Mr. Morgan's] opinion, were perfectly rele-
vant.
Mr. HARBINE said he would confine his re-
marks to the question under consideration. He
had been asked why not elect commissioners to
vote the State stock in the banks, as well as in-
ternal improvement companies? Why not offer
an amendment to that effect? The cases were
not parallel. Our interests in the former, were
not to he compared with our interests in the lat-
ter. But he was prepared for one, to invest the
commissioners proposed to be elected, with the
power to vote the State stock in the banks; nay,
in all corporations of whatsoever nature or de-
scription. There was nothing wrong or incon-
sistent in that. These commissioners would just
be as well qualified to name or vote for directors
to represent the Slate in a bank, as they would
be to vote for the officers to control the Chesa-
peake and Ohio Canal In either case he sup-
posed they would be as competent as those now
performing these duties. He was a firm believer
in the election of these and all officers by the
people. It was a fundamental principle in a
republican form of government, and surely noth-
ing anti-republican in its character or tendency,
should find a place in our new Constitution.
Mr. DAVIS called for the reading of Mr. HOWARD'S
proposition—which was not read.
After some conversation as to the order of
proceeding between Mr. BROWN and Mr. HOW-
ARD—
Mr. DAVIS proceeded to address the Conven-
tion-
He said the gentleman from Carroll, [Mr.
Brown,] and the gentleman from Washington,
[Mr. Harbine,] had argued, and that with great
earnestness, that it was the duty of the Conven-
tion to give everything to the people—that they
should elect everything; bank directors included
Mr. HARBINE. I don't say bank directors.
Mr. DAVIS. Why not?
Mr. HARBINE. His statement was simply this |
