rickson, McMaster, Fooks, Jacobs, Schley, Da-
vis, Waters and Smith—32.
So the motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
Mr. SPENCER moved to proceed to the consid-
eration of the bill in relation to the judiciary,
but after some conversation with gentlemen
around him, he withdrew the motion.
Mr. JACOBS then moved further to amend the
report by adding at the end thereof, as an addi-
tional section the following:
"Section, 4. And the salary of the said com-
missioners shall not exceed the sum of one hun-
dred dollars per annum each."
Which was read.
Mr. SPENCER moved the previous question,
When some conversation ensued, after which
The motion was seconded,
The question pending being on the amend-
ment,
Mr. CHAMBERS of Kent, demended the yeas
and nays,
Which being ordered and taken,
Resulted as follows:
Affirmative — Messrs. Morgan, Blakistone,
Hopewell, Lee, Chambers of Kent, Mitchell,
Randall, Weems, Bond, John Dennis, Crisfield,
Dashiell, Hicks, Goldsborough, Eccleston, Bowie,
Tuck, McCubbin, Bowling, Dirickson, McMas-
ter, Fooks, Jacobs, Nelson, Schley, Fiery, John
Newcomer, Brewer, Waters and Smith—30.
Negative.—Messrs. Chapman, President, Ri-
caud, Donaldson, Dorsey, Wells, Brent of
Charles, Howard, Buchanan, Bell, Welch, Ridge-
ly, Lloyd, Chambers of Cecil, McCullough, Mil-
ler, Sprigg, Spencer, Grason, George, Thomas,
Shriver, Gaither, Biser, Annan, McHenry. Ma-
graw, Stewart of Caroline, Hardcastle, Gwinn,
Stewart of Baltimore city. Brent of Baltimore
city, Sherwood of Baltimore city, Ware, Neill,
Harbine, Anderson, Weber, Hollyday, Slicer,
Fitzpatrick, Parke, Shower, Cockey and Brown
—44.
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. TUCK then moved to amend the report by
adding at the end thereof as anadditional section
the following:
"Section 4, And the salary of the commission-
ers shall not exceed the sum of two hundred dol-
lars per annum each."
Which was read.
Mr. TUCK said:
It seemed to be conceded, so far as he might
judge from what had been said on the subject
by gentlemen, with the exception of the gentle-
man from Anne Arundel, [Mr. Dorsey,] that
not one word could be urged against the State
agents. Some of them had been in office for ten
years, and had received but $100 per annum,
and had faithfully done their duty. And now it
was proposed that new agents should be appoin-
ted, and each of them be allowed more pay. He
knew that it was proposed they should perform
such duties as were prescribed by law, but at
the same time, he was aware that they could
not perform any that were inconsistent with the
charters of these companies. And gentlemen |
might rack their brains to find out any other
duties than those they now performed that the
Legislature could impose. Why had he made
this motion? He objected to the whole proceed-
ings, for the effect of it would be to bring the in-
ternal improvements of this State into political
agitation. The moment they made the office of
State agent, the subject of contest before the
people, and affixed a salary to it of any value,
they would seal the fate of the internal improve-
ment companies. The gentleman from Freder-
ick. [Mr. Thomas,] said, the other day, and he
(Mr. T. ) confessed that it was a doctrine quite
new to him)—that you would get more compe-
tent men to perform the duties of the office for a
small salary than a large one—that it was an
appeal to their patriotism to do public service.
He (Mr. T.) had lived long enough to find that
these gentlemen in public life, who exhibited
most of this kind of patriotism, were those who
expected large salaries, not those who expected
low ones. And if you put a man, where he de-
sired to be, as between a high and low salary—
he would, as he (Mr. T.) had noticed—generally
take the profit and waive the honor. (Laughter.)
He believed the effect would be to create four
large salaries for place hunters; for if we create
the office without limiting the salary, we know
not what influences may operate upon the Leg-
islature when they come to fix the compensa-
tion. We know their duties, let us fix the salary.
He would appeal to the gentleman from Anne
Arundel, (Mr, Dorsey,) who had spoken of this
matter all along, as one of great pecuniary inter-
est to the State, for his aid on this question.—
Mr. T. knew that he (Mr. Dorsey) differed with
the gentleman from Frederick in regard to the
compensation. That gentleman thought that a
low salary would be best, while the gentleman
from Anne Arundel, [Mr. Dorsey,] thought
otherwise. How could this be with the views
he entertained on the subject as a financial mat-
ter. He [Mr. Tuck] wanted to know why this
Convention should not exercise the power.-—
Why they were not better qualified to indicate
the duties they should perform, and the salary
they ought to receive than the Legislature? We
have limited the Governor's salary, and the sal-
aries of the other public officers.
As far as we had said, any thing on that sub-
ject, we had proposed to limit those of the judg-
es; and that question was now before the Conven-
tion as well as that of protecting the people
against the payment of excessive emoluments to
office-holders. Was this Convention competent
to determine the amount of the salary these officers
should receive, and yet be unable to fix the sala-
ry of these commissioners ? He believed, with
the gentleman from Frederick, that the salary
should be small; and he also thought, that if the
amount were limited now, we should save these
companies from the ruinous connection between
them and party politics. No man would be will-
ing to canvass his district for this small sum, to
mingle the affairs of these companies with politi-
cal discussions. And he, (Mr. T.,) concurred |
