sheets upon the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, the
Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, or the Sasquehanna
Railroad, and would compare them with those
on the New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio and
other State works, all of which he had in his pos-
session, and which were at the service of any gen-
tleman who wished to embark in the discussion.
The only other remark he should make now was,
and it was in addition to the remark he had made
yesterday. He objected to the proposition of
the gentleman from Frederick, [Mr. Thomas,]
on account of its vagueness and incompleteness.
The gentleman, [Mr. Thomas,] he must have a
"diligent supervision," He took it for granted
that when a gentleman submitted a proposition,
an ingenious and intelligent mind could tell how
it was to be carried out practically. Now, he
found by the proposition of the gentleman from
Baltimore county, (Mr. Howard,) that the
board ought to be created so "as to use all the
legal power of the State" to regulate the toils on
the works of internal improvement so as to pre-
vent injurious competition. He desired to hear
from the honorable gentleman how this was to be
done ? What legal power they had to exercise ?
And in what manner they were to perform this
duty?
Mr. HOWARD said:
The gentleman from Montgomery, (Mr.
Davis,) had called upon him to answer a ques-
tion, very distinctly put, and he would do it, so
far as he could with great pleasure. The legal
power of the State was absolutely vested in two
of these companies—the Chesapeake and Ohio
Canal Company, and the Susquehanna Railroad
Company. The State agents overruled the votes
of all the other stockholders, and appointed the
directors of the Canal Company, and these di-
rectors managed the affairs of the company. The
State appointed the directors of the Susquehanna
Railroad Company; and they passed what laws
they chose. With regard to those two, there-
fore, this board could exercise unlimited control.
With respect to those two companies, he suppo-
sed that his information was satisfactory. With
regard to the other two, he had said yesterday,
that if this board found that either one of the
companies refused to come into an arrangement
of tolls which was reasonable, not subversive of
the interest of any one company or of the public,
the board must appeal to the Legislature. There
was always a power in the Legislature to keep
corporations, whether civil, charitable, or reli-
gious, within their appropriate limits. It was
analagous to the power of eminent domain. No
corporation had a right to misuse its powers and
convert itself into a source of injury instead of
benefit to the public. In such a case the Legisla-
ture would have a constitutional right to bring it
back to its appropriate sphere. If it should still
persevere in running riot, its charter would be
endangered, and might be forfeited by a quo war-
ranto. In these various ways the proposed board
would have ample power to secure the public
interest.
Mr. DAVIS had listened to the explanation of
the honorable gentleman, (Mr. Howard,) with |
great pleasure, but he regretted to say that the
gentleman had failed to satisfy him. He, (Mr.
D.,) was at a loss to see how the directors of the
Susquehanna Railroad Company, and the Chesa-
peake and Ohio Canal Company, with the legal
powers already secured to them by their charter,
would be controlled, except by the despotic
power of removal, and appointment of a more
supple tool in their places, to do their bidding.
And he was not sure that this could be done in the
Susquehanna Railroad Company, except at regu-
lar annual elections,
Mr. SCHLEY said he did not understand the
view taken by the gentleman from Baltimore
county, (Mr. Howard ) This article looked to
the election of a board of commissioners, whose
duty it should be to represent the State in all
joint stock companies. And, as to the amend-
ment that the gentleman had offered, making it
the duty of this board "to review, from time to
time, the rate of tolls adopted by any company,
and use all legal powers which it may possess to
obtain the establishment of a rate which may
prevent an injurious competition with each other,
to the detriment of the interests of the Treasury
of the State."
He (Mr. S.,) did not comprehend how this
board could perform this proposed duty. By the
charter of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Com-
pany, the president and directors have the exclu-
sive right to fix the tolls, never to exceed a
specified minimum rate. There was great pro-
priety in their being invested with the power to
adjust tolls—for as they fixed them, they secured
or drove away trade from this work. So far
as the charter of that company, therefore, was
concerned, the tolls were controlled as stated.
How, then, did the State get any power over the
subject" When the company, in 1834, applied
for a loan, the Legislature inserted a provision in
the law granting it that the tolls should not be re-
duced without its consent. Or, in other words,
looking to the interest on that loan, they made it
a condition of the loan, that the State would not
lend to the company its money or credit, except
upon the express contract that the tolls should
not be reduced without the consent of the Legis-
lature. That was all the control which the State
of Maryland had over the tolls. The Chesa-
peake and Ohio Canal Company could increase
their tolls within a fixed minimum, without the
consent of the Legislature, but. they could not
reduce them without its sanction. And why? It
was because of the theory then entertained that
a reduction of the tolls would produce a diminu-
tion of the revenues.
This amendment, if he understood it, was, that
this Board of State agents should have the power
to review the acts of this Company. How could
they exercise any control over the President and
Directors, within the scope of their authority.
Mr. HOWARD. How, if the President and Di-
rectors elected, refused to increase or diminish
the tolls?
Mr. SCHLEY replied, that if they did not keep
their tolls at a rate that the agents approved,
they might annually displace them. The Presi- |
