two cases were not analogous. Under this bill,
the Commissioners were not merely to meet in
stockholder's meeting to appoint Directors of the
companies in which the State was a stockholder;
or to vote upon the reduction of toll, but to ex-
ercise a general supervision. They were to be
the agents of the people. They were to be
elected by the people from every portion of the
State, so that every interest should be represent-
ed. They had certain duties prescribed them;
to make certain reports, &c.; and in addition to
this they were to do whatever the Legislature
should prescribe. This branch of the proposition
embraced the very thing for which the gentleman
Charles (Mr. Merrick,) had contended. The
Legislature might prescribe to the Commissioners
the duty to elect one of their own number Presi-
dent of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Compa-
ny, and thus the President of that Company might
in effect be elected by the people themselves.
They might direct that the President should in
one year be elected from a particular district, so
as to be a Whig, and the next year from another
district, so as to be a Democrat, and thus entire-
ly disarm all partizan machinery. They might
prescribe duties of so much usefulness, and
frought with so much advantage, taking up so
much of the time of the Commissioners, that the
salary proposed would be entirely inadequate,
As the duties could not be definately settled by-
the Convention, but must he left to the Legislature,
the compensation must also he left to the
Legislature; the two being inseparable.
When the office of Attorney General was un-
der consideration, he had advocated the proposi-
tion to abolish the present system, and in the
new system to prescribe the duties of an Attorney
General, and to fix his salary. But a major-
ity of the body abolished the office entirely, and
were unwilling, while they authorized the Gov-
ernor to employ counsel for the State, to allow
him to fix the fees to be paid. Now, when gen-
tlemen had left it to the Legislature to fix the
fees to be paid to counsel in such cases, with
what consistency could they refuse to allow the
Legislature to fix the compensation to be paid
in this case, where the duties were to a certain
extent to be of their own appointment? His
course had been consistent throughout. He had
disapproved the perpetuation of the tax system;
because there might be a change required here-
after. Here was a proposition intimately con-
nected with the system of taxation; and here
also he wished to avoid restricting the Legis-
lature.
He had spoken longer than he intended. He
had twice moved the previous question, and bad
this morning voted to lay this proposition upon
the table; but it had been the pleasure of the
Convention that the debate should not cease,
and he had felt it incumbent upon him to vindi-
cate the position he held upon this subject, and
to assign to this Convention and to his constit-
uents, the reasons for the vote which he should
give upon this proposition. Having done this,
he would leave the measure in the hands of 'the
Convention. |
Mr. BUCHANAN moved the previous question,
and demanded the yeas and nays thereupon,
Which were ordered,
And being taken, resulted yeas 44, nays 33, as
follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Donaldson, Sellman, Dal-
rymple, Howard, Buchanan, Bell, Welch, Ridge-
ly, Lloyd, Dickinson, Sherwood of Talbot, Col-
ston, McCullough, Miller, Spencer, Grason,
George, Thomas, Shriver, Gaither, Biser, An-
nan, Magraw, Nelson, Stewart of Caroline, Hard-
castle, Gwinn, Stewart of Baltimore city, Brent
of Baltimore city, Sherwood of Baltimore city,
Ware, Schley, Neill, John Newcomer, Harbine,
Brewer, Weber, Hollyday, Slicer, Fitzpatrick,
Parke, Shower, Cockey and Brown—44.
Negative—Messrs. Chapman, President, Morgan,
Blakistone, Hopewell, Ricaud, Lee, Cham-
bers of Kent, Mitchell, Dorsey, Wells, Randall,
Kent, Weems, Bond, Brent of Charles, John
Dennis, Crisfield, Dashiell, Hicks, Goldsborough,
Eccleston, Bowie, Tuck, Sprigg, McCubbin, Bow-
ling, Dirickson, McMaster, Hearn, Fooks, Ja-
cobs, Davis and Smith—33.
So the previous question was sustained.
The question was then stated on the adoption
of the amendment as offered by Mr. TUCK.
Mr. RIDGELY inquired whether a proposition
would be in order, if this amendment should be
rejected, to make the salary two hundred and
fifty or three hundred dollars.
The PRESIDENT replied in the affirmative.
Mr, RIDGELY. Then with a view of econo-
mizing time, I shall vote for it. ,
Mr. TUCK demanded the yeas and nays,
Which were ordered,
And being taken, resulted yeas 33, nays 47, as
follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Chapman, President, Lee,
Chambers of Kent, Mitchell, Donaldson, Ran-
dall, Kent, Weems, Dalrymple, Bond, Brent of
Charles, Ridgely, John Dennis, Crisfield, Dashiell,
Hicks, Goldsborough, Eccleston, Phelps, Tuck,
Bowling, Dirickson, McMaster, Hearn, Fooks,
Jacobs, Nelson, Schley, Fiery, John Newcomer,
Davis, Brewer and Smith—33.
Negative— Messrs. Morgan, Blakistone, Hope-
well, Ricaud, Dorsey, Wells, Sellman, Howard,
Buchanan, Bell, Welch, Lloyd, Dickinson, Sher-
wood of Talbot, Colston, McCullough, Miller,
Bowie, Sprigg, McCubbin, Spencer, Grason,
George, Thomas, Shriver, Gaither, Biser, An-
nan, Magraw, Stewart of Caroline, Hardcastle,
Gwinn, Stewart of Baltimore city, Brent of Bal-
timore city, Sherwood of Baltimore city, Ware,
Neill, Harbine, Anderson, Weber, Hollyday,
Slicer, Fitzpatrick, Parke, Shower, Cockey and
Brown—47.
go the amendment was rejected.
On motion of Mr. BOWIE,
The Convention proceeded to the consideration
of the special order of the day, being the report
No. 13, submitted by him as chairman of the
committee on the judiciary.
Which was read.
Mr, CRISFIED, in order to bring before the
Convention the report which he had submitted
on March 18th, moved to amend the bill, by |
