The PRESIDENT. The question is to lay the
amendment on the table.
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent, demanded the yeas
and nays,
Which were ordered,
And being taken resulted, yeas 35, nays 37, as
follows:
Affirmative— Messrs. Dorsey, Howard, Bell,
Welch, Ridgely, Lloyd, Chambers of Cecil, Mc-
Cullough, Miller, Spencer, Grason, George,
Thomas, Shriver, Gaither, Biser, Annan, Ma-
graw, Nelson, Stewart of Caroline, Hardcastle,
Gwinn, Stewart of Baltimore city, Sherwood of
Baltimore city, Ware, Fiery, Harbine, Brewer,
Anderson, Hollyday, Slicer, Parke, Shower,
Cockey and Brown—35.
Negative—Messrs. Chapman, President, Mor-
gan, Blakistone, Hopewell, Ricaud, Lee, Cham-
bers of Kent, Mitchell, Donaldson, Wells, Ran-
dall, Weems, Bond, Brent of Charles, Buchanan,
John Dennis, Crisfield, Dashiell, Hicks, Golds-
borough, Eccleston, Phelps, Bowie, Tuck, Sprigg,
McCubbin, Bowling, Dirickson, McMaster, Hearn,
Fooks, Jacobs, Brent of Baltimore city, Schley,
John Newcomer, Davis, Waters and Smith—37.
So the Convention refused to lay the amend-
ment on the table,
Mr. CHAMBERS tendered his acknowledgments
to the Convention for an act of justice, common
justice, the opportunity of defending himself. I
have, sir, said he, remained for the last three
days a patient listener to this discussion. I have
given my votes without assigning any reason for
them. And now, the gentleman from Frederick,
(Mr. Thomas,) has undertaken to give reasons
for votes made by me and others without the
shadow of authority for so doing. He has not
only charged us with the most palpable inconsist-
ency, but has concluded by a motion, which, if
successful, would have effectually sealed our lips
and denied us the privilege of repudiating his im-
putation.
Mr. THOMAS explained that when the gentle-
man from Prince George's had disclaimed having
used the argument, he had said, " true, you did
not; but you were silent." This was in perfect
harmony with what he had already said, that he
had divided the members into two classes, one
of which had used the argument and the other
had remained silent.
Mr. CHAMBERS. When the gentleman from
Prince George's, (Mr, Bowie,) was accused of
inconsistency, he had replied that he had not used
that argument. The answer of the gentleman
from Frederick was, " you were silent." Now,
if the silence of that gentleman was publicly
charged as a sufficient ground on which to impute
inconsistency, it will apply with equal force to
the rest of us,
Mr. THOMAS said that he had never intended
to say that every gentleman who had voted si-
lently, had given his acquiescence to the argument
used in open debate. He had divided those
who were in favor of this proposition into two
classes. One of them had used that argument
and voted incompatibly with it. The other had
remained silent.
Mr. C. No man here has a .right to arraign |
my vote for inconsistency and above all in this
case. I do not disclaim the influence of politi-
cal feeling. When I perceive no other object to
be effected by a measure but to benefit one po-
litical party and depress another, I will obey such
an influence. I have for three days attentively
heard all that has been urged in favor of this
measure, and I do solemnly assert, that to my
mind, there is no useful purpose to which it can
possibly lead, unless it be found in putting out
officers of one description of politics and putting
in those of a different character, not a particle of
advantage to the State either in getting better
officers or in getting them at a smaller cost.
When capital was to be made by the cry of " re-
trenchment," we heard it from one end of the
State to the other, but when a question is present-
ed of turning out one set to put in another, and
gentlemen are appealed to, not to do this by in-
creasing the charge on the treasury, why, " re-
trenchment is forgotten. What has become of
" retrenchment " here and now? We are now
advised to turn over to the Legislature " the
poor duty " of assigning salaries. Yes, sir, these
are the gentleman's words, " the poor duty of
assigning the salary." In what, then, does re-
trenchment " consist ? Is it in turning out one
class of politicians who receive one hundred dol-
lars and refusing to limit the Legislature as to
the amount to be allowed those who are to sup-
ply their places " Now, sir, let us see whose
votes are most consistent. We have officers who
now perform their duty faithfully, and they re-
ceive one hundred dollars each as compensation.
My desire is to retain them, while the gentleman,
who goes for reform and retrenchment, proposes
to substitute others. We proceed to vote, and I
find myself out voted on the question of putting
out the present incumbents. That vote, in my
opinion, has the effect, and no other but this ef-
fect, to put out the present officers and put per-
sons in who differ from them in politics. This
being accomplished, we are called upon to fix
their salaries. I say, if you will change the in-
cumbents, do it without incurring additional ex-
pense. The existing officers receive one hun-
dred dollars, and I say, let those who are to suc-
ceed receive the same and no more. Is there, I
ask, sir, any inconsistency in this ? I think not.
It strikes me, all that is on the other side of the
house, an ultra inconsistency, it seems to me,
with all notions of retrenchment. The gentle-
man from Frederick has charged my friend from
Washington, (Mr. Schley,) with inconsistency
in first expressing in a speech his belief that com-
petent officers ought to receive a larger compen-
sation than one hundred dollars, and then voting
to restrict the Legislature to the present salary
Now, what may my friend from Washington re-
tort? " You, sir, have made, not one speech on-
ly, but fully half a dozen, to prove that ' gentle-
men of the highest qualifications could be had
for a low salary, and that it would be an unne-
cessary charge to the State to allow a high one,
and if you were a member of the Legislature you
would not give more than one hundred dollars,'
and yet, by your vote, you leave the Legislature
to make the salary just what they please; you re- |
