not know what effect that argument might have
had upon other members, but to his, [Mr. S's.]
mind, it was conclusive, that this was an office
created simply by law, and not known to the
Constitution. This was an attempt to introduce
an office unknown to it. The State agents were
the mere creatures of the law, and were created
in consequence of the State having embarked its
means in joint stock companies. The State was
perfectly competent to make and unmake those
agents.
Now, was the office of a State agent like the
office of a judge or sheriff, or like the other
offices known to the Constitution. It was an
office of temporary duration, and an attempt was
made to give it perpetuity by inserting it in the
Constitution. There seemed to him to be no
valid reason why the Convention should intro-
duce into the Constitution an office which might
not last as long as that instrument, and which
it was more than probable would end in fifteen
or twenty years. He had resisted this project,
which had just been acted upon, because he
thought this subject could properly be confided
to the body from which it emanated, and that
the further and future regulations of the powers
and duties of those agents might be safely con-
fided to the same body that brought them into
existence. But the Convention had decided
otherwise. It had decided that those agents of
the State should be elected by the people. He
had no objection to their being elected by the
people, provided it was the wish of the people
themselves, as he had stated when he had the
honor of addressing the Convention before. He
had no objection lo that feature, but he did ob-
ject to putting in the Constitution an office
which would not last as long as the Constitution,
and which by its nature and duties was neces-
sarily temporary. And with a view that the
Convention should reconsider their vote, he
would read, by way of argument, the following
as resons for the reconsideration.
The proposition, as the Convention would per-
ceive, contained the same requirements with
those in the plan adopted, but restricted the num-
ber to three and looked to the principle of econo-
my and retrenchment, and not to the creation of
a new office, but to the retrenchment of one ex-
isting. At present we had five State agents at
one hundred dollars each a year. He wished
the number to be reduced—first, as a measure of
retrenchment, and next, because the body would
act with more celerity than on the plan adopted,
which constituted a board of four, because, upon
a division, the treasurer of the State must be sent
for to arrive at a definite conclusion. It was to
be apprehended that very great inconvenience
would ensue, as the treasurer must be present to
decide any difference of opinion among the four
State agents. Difference of opinion would ne-
cessarily result from the very constitution of the
board, consisting,) as it probably would, of two
whigs and two democrats. He would not dilate
on the subject as he had fully expressed his sentiments
in arguing against the proposition before
But, as he had already said, this office was tem- |
porary— it was not to run the course of the Con-
stitution, because, we knew that the State of
Maryland might hereafter do what she had al-
ready attempted to do, sell out her interest in the
public works. In addition to that, she might
transfer her stock of the Chesapeake and Ohio
canal company, to the various counties of the
State. By a provision of the Act of 1840, it was
stipulated that when a certain period of time
should have arrived, the stock of this Chesapeake
and Ohio canal company, owned by the State,
should be transferred to the different counties of
the State and the city of Baltimore, in proportion
to the amount paid in by each. There was
another reason, and it was this, that when the
State debts were paid off, there would be no ne-
cessity for the exercise of the proposed duties of
those agents. But, certainly, in the event of the
stock being transferred to the several counties,
the duties of the agents would instantly cease, as
each county would vote its own stock. These
were the reasons why he was opposed to insert-
ing in the Constitution, as he had stated, an office
which was necessarily limited in its duration.
He preferred that the power should be lodged .
with the Legislature, which could mould the sys-
tem to every exigency.
Mr. RIDGELY said, he would ask the gentleman
from Washington, (Mr. SCHLEY,) a single ques-
tion. If he understood his objection lo the bill
which had passed the House, and which he now-
desired to have reconsidered, it was based upon
the fact that the office of commissioners of the
public works now created by the Constitution,
was, in its nature, merely temporary, and that,
therefore, it was improper to make it a constitu-
tional appointment. Now, the proposition read
by the gentleman, which he intends to offer as a
substitute, should the motion to reconsider pre-
vail, embodies in the Constitution fixed districts,
from each of which, one of these commissioners
shall be taken, and thereby necessarily gives con-
stitutional permanence to the office. How then
does he obviate the objection which he has urged
against the bill as passed ?
Mr. GWINN moved to lay the motion to recon-
sider on the table.
Whereupon,
Mr SCHLEY demanded the yeas and nays,
Which were ordered,
And being taken, resulted as follows :
Affirmative—Messrs. Dorsey, Howard, Buchanan,
Bell, Welch, Ridgely, Lloyd, Dickinson,
Chambers of Cecil, McCullough, Miller, Spen-
cer, Grason, George, Thomas, Shriver, Gaither,
Biser, Annan, Magraw, Nelson, Stewart of Caroline,
Hardcastle, Gwinn, Stewart of Baltimore
city, Brent of Baltimore city, Sherwood of Balti-
more city, Ware, Fiery, Neill, John Newcomer,
Harbine, Brewer, Anderson, Weber, Hollyday,
Slicer, Fitzpatrick, Parke, Shower, Cockey and
Brown—42.
Negative—Messrs. Chapman, President, Mor-
gan, Blakistone, Hopewell, Ricaud, Lee, Cham-
bers of Kent, Mitchell, Donaldson, Wells, Ran-
dall, Weems, Bond, ilrent of Charles, John Den-
nis, Crisfield, Dashiell, Hicks, Goldsborough,
Bowie, Tuck, Sprigg, McCubbin, Bowling, Di- |
