having previously gone into operation, and under
which Governor Grason had been elected Go-
vernor of the State, the Legislature, by party
votes, and looking to the party machinery of those
works, not only took from the Governor and the
Senate the power of appointment, but passed an
act prescribing that, thereafter, the agents should
be appointed by the concurring vote of the two
branches of the Legislature. Did not every one
know that the object was that they should con-
trol party measures by this influence ? So ob-
noxious had been that act, that for several years,
all appeals made by the friends of that work to
the Legislature, for assistance to complete the
Canal, were met by a decided opposition, and it
was declarer that another cent should never be
appropriated until that obnoxious law was re-
pealed. From that time down to the present,
that obnoxious law had remained unrepealed.
And now, when a proposition was brought into
this body to incorporate into the Constitution such
a provision that these works could never again be
used as party instruments, that the board should
at all times be divided between the two parties,
then an appeal was made to resist this change,
because it was of a partisan character, and would
interfere with party machinery.
Mr. DAVIS wished to call attention to the fact,
that in 1839, the House of Delegates had passed a
bill for the completion of the Canal, which had
been defeated in the Senate,
Mr. SPENCER said that he was speaking of the
effect of the act of 1840, which was passed after
the time referred to. He was doing this to show
that there was nothing in the present bill of a
partisan character, while the bill contended for
by the gentleman from Kent, was exclusively par-
tisan. The gentleman from Kent, in reply to the
remarks of the gentleman from Frederick, [Mr.
Thomas,] had spoken of the impossibility of his
declaring, with assurance, that he should never
again serve in a political capacity, and had nar-
rated an anecdote in relation to General Jackson
in illustration. He (Mr. S.,) would say to the
gentleman from Kent, that it was no easier for
him (Mr. C.,) to understand himself, than for the
gentleman from Frederick, if he had become
convinced that this was a partisan movement, it
would be well for him to reflect how easy it was
for any man to be deluded by the influence of par-
tisan feeling. The position which he [Mr. S.,]
took, was that this partisan machinery now in the
hands of the Legislature, should be taken from
them. It did not follow that any gentleman was
to bo turned out. The present State's agents
might as well be elected by the people of the
State as any others, and would be likely to be so,
if the people considered that their duties had
been faithfully discharged. To say that in pas.
sing this bill would he to turn out the present
State's agents, was to say that they could not
stand the test of a popular election, and he would
not assume such a position,
The gentleman from Kent had said that there
were members here clamoring for retrenchment
and reform; but who, when they came to act
upon a question of reform, were found not to be |
so good reformers as those who made less clamor.
This was apparently intended to intimate that
those gentlemen who had sought retrenchment
and reform, were in this matter voting against
their principles; while that gentleman was voting
as a reformer and for retrenchment. And was
there no retrenchment and reform involved in
this proposition? Did gentlemen ask for retrench-
ment in an amendment declaring that these Com-
missioners should only receive $200 ? The reform
party in Maryland were opposed to unnecessary
offices, to life offices, and to excessive salaries;
but there was another principle of reform, which
was to pay the public servant according to his
labor. The reform party were guilty of no
mealiness. They were at all times willing to pay
an adequate salary to any officer of the govern-
ment. His bill proposed in the first place to in-
troduce reform by making the office one of elec-
tion by the people; to enable the people to elect
officers to have charge of the works, upon the
good management of which the whole system of
taxation depended. Was not this reform? Was
it not better that the people should have this
power, rather than the Legislature? What would
be the effect? At present the great mass of the
people of the State were almost in entire ignor-
ance as to to the management of these works.
How many are there who do know who is the
President or who are the Directors of any one of
them? But if the bill should pass, and the can-
didates should be brought before the people for
this office, then the State works would be brought
in review. The people would be made acquaint-
ed with their details and their management, and
would know whether the power was properly or
corruptly used. The parties being divided upon
the Board, if that which should be in the ascen-
dency should deviate in the least from the strict
line of right, the other party would be sure to
expose the machinations, and the people would
take cognisance of them.
He would ask the gentleman from Kent, with
all sincerity, whether he (Mr. C.) had given any
evidence of the notions of reform, by which he
judged those favorable to this measure, when he
charged them with being professed but not real
reformers? Upon what bill which had come be-
fore the Convention at any time, had that gentle-
man shown an interest in reform which would
authorize him to judge those who professed to
be reformers?
The gentleman from Prince George's, the
mover of this proposition, (Mr. Tuck,) had asked
why gentlemen should refuse to support an
amendment limiting the salary to $200, when the
very same Commissioners now perform the same
duties for $100? Did it follow that because one
set of men were improperly paid, their successors
should receive either too much or too little? His
doctrine of reform was, that if any public officer
received too much for his labor, his salary should
be retrenched; but if he received too little, he
should be paid in proportion to his labor. If
these Commissioners had been paid too little
heretofore, he would be willing that their succes-
sors should receive a reasonable sum. But the |
