with those who thought that the whole policy and
management of those companies would be brought
up at the elections the moment you offered any
inducement to public men to do it; and besides,
where is the necessity for this ? There can be
no mistake about one thing. If the proof had
not been before us, the fact might have been
doubted. But we know that gentlemen have
been doing the work for $100 per year for the
last ten years. We propose to fix a limit—and
gentlemen object. Why ? They say they are
looking to the whole scheme of reform as being
for the welfare of the people, and to protect the
treasury. He would like to know by what sort
of reasoning they could make manifest their pur-
pose, while they refused to shut the door against
this attempt to increase salaries to be paid out of
the public coffers.
The objection he had had to the mode of ap-
pointment, as he had said before, was, to bring
about political agitation on the subject, and this
danger is to be increased by holding out the in-
ducement of handsome compensation. The Con-
vention had determined, by a majority, that they
should be appointed in that way. He was in
favor of limiting the salary to prevent the evils
he apprehended. He thought it would have been
better to have said nothing about it in the Con-
vention, and to have left the matter to the Legis-
lature to settle all the details. But if we are to
meddle with it at all, he was for fixing the salary
as well as changing the mode of appointment.
Mr. THOMAS said he disliked to occupy the
attention of the Convention, but it seemed to him
that the gentleman from Prince George's [Mr.
Tuck,] should be replied to. He would ask, was
not this a most singular exposition we had just
witnessed? Determination of the majority at
this stage of our business, when we had a multi-
tude of it to do. Look at the strange vote which
had just been taken, composed in part of the
very members who had contended pertenaciously
for two propositions, and which he thought
were incompatible with the votes that bad just
given. And what, he inquired, were the two
propositions mooted here? One argument was,
if you made the salaries of these State agents
very moderate, no one who was competent would
accept the office. That came from the gentle-
man from Washington, [Mr. Schley,] and he
laid great emphasis upon the words "you would
get no one to fill it." Well, the Convention bad
decided, by a majority, that they would elect
those officers. What followed? The very gen-
tlemen who had said that he ought not to put the
salary so low that no one would compete for it,
had proposed to fix the compensation at the
smallest sum incontemplation.
Mr. TUCK, (in his seat.) That was not my
doctrine.
Mr. THOMAS, The gentleman remained silent,
and did not object to the argument that had given
votes to his side of the question. Other gentle-
men had argued here that the Legislature was
the only proper depository of the whole question
of appointing the agents of the State, and fixing
their salaries. The Convention had determined |
that those commissioners should not be the mere
foot-ball of party, to be put in and out, as parties
fluctuated in the Legislature. The Convention
had thought proper to make them Constitutional
officers, just as we should do. As we would do
when we come to the criminal court of Balti-
more, and other parts of the judiciary system.
We would make them as they ought to be stable
and steady, exactly as we had done in another
case when we had adopted an article introduced
on his motion directing the Legislature to make
uniform modes of election or appointment of all
officers, however subordinate they might be. He
said they had done this to prevent these various
officers from being made the foot-ball of party,
The Convention had determined that for these
reasons, the power to appoint these officers should
be taken from the Legislature, and were willing
to leave to the Legislature the power to fix their
salaries. Now the gentleman from Prince
George's [Mr. Tuck,] had moved a proposition to
fix those salaries in the constitution. And for
this proposition he said that the very branch of
the Convention—he spoke it with great respect,
for he knew those contrarieties in action and the-
ories prevailed in all bodies of men—that was for
committing all the powers over this subject to the
Legislature, were now ready to deny to the same
body the right of saying what salary or compen-
sation such officers should receive. Look at this
incompatibility of theory and action. If the Le-
gislature was competent to be trusted with the
whole subject, were they not of an inferior part?
Mr. TUCK. If the gentleman wished to im-
pute any motive to him, he was entirely mis-
taken.
Mr. THOMAS. Very well, he, [Mr. T.,] was
speaking of an extraordinary exhibition; he im-
pugned the motives of no gentleman. If there
was any attempt to get too much compensation
for the commissioners, he would guarantee the
Legislature would correct it. He would say that
if he was a member of the Legislature, he would
not vote for a large salary. He would allow the
officer his travelling expenses. We had had a
very high order of men filling the offices before,
and now we had reduced the number from five
to four. We had distributed throughout the
whole State this power, because we did not want
to put in the power of the people to take them all
from one section or district. We had gone as
far as was necessary, and for one, he was willing
to leave the subject of compensation to the Legis-
lature, where the agents heretofore expressed
their willingness to leave the entire question.
He moved to lay the whole subject on the table.
Mr. BOWIE intimated that he would like to say
a few words in reply, if the gentleman would
withdraw his motion.
Mr. THOMAS said that if he withdrew his mo-
tion, he had no doubt the consequence would be
to re-open the whole discussion. He would
withdraw it for the gentleman to whom he, [Mr.
T.,] had replied, [Mr. Tuck,] if that gentleman
desired it. If he opened it for the gentleman,
(Mr. Bowie,) he would have to do so for others
who had not spoken, |
