Mr. BISER said he had listened to his friend
from Kent (Mr. Chambers) not only with at-
tention, but with great delight, as he always
did. He had been edified, but had not been
made a convert. Perhaps the fault was his—
that he might be somewhat dull of comprehension.
in reply to Mr. Chambers's anecdote, he
desired to say it was not his wish to turn the
cattle of Frederick county into the grass pas-
tures of Kent; for he believed it was more abun-
dant in his own county; that the gentleman had
tetter act upon the principle to be just before
he was generous. But be agreed with the gen-
tleman from Kent in one thing: he had given a
faithful historical account of the rise and origin
of the School Fund, of which he had spoken.
He. (Mr, B.) however, did not agree with him
in some of his illusitations, nor was he disposed,
when time was so precious, to follow him
through all his minutiae. It was enough for him
to know there was a School Fund, and that it
was a common fund. And it was enough, too,
to know that we—the representatives of the
people, did not aid in distributing it, but were
the descendants of those who did, and we were
entitled to an equal distribution. The gentle-
man had said it had been disbursed in a certain
manner; the proceeds of the School Fund had
been distributed, as it now stood, but the prin-
cipal had remained untouched, and argued that
any changes in the distribution now would be
unfair. Why, said Mr. Biser, a dozen gentle-
men might enter into co-partnership, and the
proceeds of that co-partnership might be un-
fairly distributed for a time; but does the gentle-
man argue that it should remain so for all time,
that the evil and inequality should not be reme-
died at some time. Surely, the gentleman will
not advocate this doctrine. And now was the
proper time, in the opinion of Mr. Biser, when
justice and equity were watch-words—to dis-
tribute this fund in proportion to the white
population throughout the State. Was there
anything unjust or improper in the amendment
of the gentleman from Baltimore city, which
proposed an equal distribution. Was it proper
that some counties should receive three, four,
or five times as much benefit from this fund as
other counties. He, Mr. Biser, was of opinion
that it should be distributud according to the
white basis. He now repeated whut he had
said before; he wished to place himself right on
the journal, and on the Register of Debates,
that he had not changed his opinion, he had
very little hope of carrying the object he had in
view. He had now performed his duty, and
would fulfil his promise made to the gentleman
from Baltimore county, (Mr. Howard,) give way
for the gentleman to move to lay the whole sub-
ject on the table, which would be a test vote.
Mr. HOWARD moved to lay the motion of re-
consideration on the table.
Mr. BLAKISTONE demanded the yeas and nays,
which being ordered and taken, resulted as
follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't, Mor-
Blakistone, Dent, Hopewell. Ricaud, Lee,
Chambers, of Kent, Mitchell, Donaldson, Dor- |
sey. Wells, Randall, Sellman, Dalrymple, Bond,
Brent, of Charles, Howard, Buchanan, Welch,
Lloyd, Dickinson, John Dennis, jas. U. Dennis,
Crisfield, Dashiell, Williams, Hicks, Hodson,
Goldsborough, Eccleston, Chambers, of Cecil,
McCubbin, Bowling, Spencer, Grason, George,
Wright, Dirickson, McMaster, Hearn, Fooks,
Jacobs, Sappington, Magraw, Nelson,. Carter,
Thawley, Schley, Harbine, Davis, Kilgour
Brewer, Waters, Anderson, Holliday, Smith
and Shower—58.
Negative—Messrs. Miller, Johnson, Gaither,
Biser, Annan, McHenry, Gwinn, Stewart, of
Baltimore city, Brent, of Baltimore city, Sher-
wood, of Baltimore city, Fiery, Neill, John
Newcomer, Michael Newcomer, Weber, Fitz-
patrick, Slicer, Parke, Cockey and Brown—20.
So the motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent, gave notice that the
motion made by him on yesterday, for a recon-
sideration of the vote of the Convention on the
report of the committee on representation, he
should move to take up on Thursday next.
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY.
The Convention then resumed the considera-
tion of the order of the day, being the report,
submitted by Mr. Bowie, chairman of the com-
mittee on the judiciary.
Mr. SPENCER moved that the consent of the
Convention be granted to enable him to move
to reconsider the vote of the Convention on the
10th section of the report adopted on yesterday,
for the purpose of inserting the following sub-
stitute proposed by him for the section:
"There shall be in each county of this State
an orphans' court, which shall hold, use and
exercise all the powers, authorities and juris-
dictions now held, used and exercised by the
existing orphans' courts in the several counties
of this State; and the General Assembly may,
by law, restrain or enlarge the powers and. ju-
risdiction thereof. The judge of the circuit in
which any orphans' court shall be held, shall
bejudge thereof; and shall hold at least four
terms of said court in each year in each county
in his circuit, or oftener if required bylaw. In
the recess of the orphans' court, the register of
wills in each county shall have and exercise all
and singular the powers, authorities and juris-
diction of the said court; and from any final
order, judgment or decree of the register of
wills, there shall be a right of appeal, under
such regulations as may be provided by law,
to the judge of the orphans' court; and the said
judge shall have the matter of said appeal de
novo, and decide according to the equity and
right of the matter. From any final order,
judgment or decree of the said circuit judge,
sitting as a judge of the orphans' court, there
shall be a right of appeal to the court of appeals,
as now or hereafter may be provided by
law."
Mr. SPENCER demanded the yeas and nays,
which being ordered and taken, resulted as
follows: |
