Mr. HARBINE. I renew the motion, and do
hope that the motion to reconsider will prevail.
It strikes me as if the article which my friend
has moved to reconsider, should never have been
inserted in the Constitution. Now, I have gone
to the trouble to examine some of the constitu-
tions of the States of this Union, and did not find
one in which such a provision has been incor-
porated; nor do I believe, if you search every
state constitution, that you will find one which
.has in it such a provision as this. And why?
Does not every man at once see the simple and
plain reason?—that it does not belong to the con-
stitution. It belongs to the legislature or law-
making power. Now look at it. What scenes
have been exhibited here this morning? Gen-
tlemen learned in the law differed as to the
soundness of the principle contained in the pro-
vision under discussion. One thinks it will
remedy present evils: others say not. Is it not
enough, when eminent men differ as to the good
or evil effect to result from such doctrine as is
contained in the section, to cause the Convention
to reject it, when we know that such matters
are properly left to the legislature? Let such
matters be left, where they are left in other
States of the Union, to the legislature, where
they have more time to discuss the policy of the
measure, and the principles involved, if the
law-making power of the state comes to the
conclusion that it should be part of the law, let
it be so. Then if it is found to operate unjustly,
if it is found inequitable, if the principle will not
work for the benefit of the people, then that
legislature, or some succeeding one, can repeal
the law, and it will no longer exist. But put it
in this Constitution, and no matter what will be
its effect, it must there remain as a part of the
organic law, so long as the Constitution exists.
I do think, with all due respect to the gentleman
who is the mover of this proposition, that it
should not have a place in the organic law. It
belongs to the law of set off, and if we are to in-
corporate all the different doctrines belonging to
that department of the law—all provisions that
may be beneficial, simply because they are beneficial
—we will have a Constitution as voluminous
as Dorsey's Laws of Maryland. If this article
is incorporated, a hundred others have the same
right to be made a part of the Constitution. To
my mind, at least, this is not the proper place,
nor is this the proper time. I withdraw the
motion to postpone indefinitely.
Mr, SCHLEY, I renew the motion. I entirely
concur with the view taken by my colleague, and
the house must be forcibly impressed with the
view taken by the gentleman from Baltimore
city, (Mr. Brent,) that this amendment would
operate most injuriously. Take the case as given
by the gentleman from Baltimore city. A owes
B a debt, but will not pay it. B institutes suit
for the recovery of the money. A is a man of
means; B is a poor man. A goes out and pur-
chases up various claims against B. When the
case comes up for trial, A pleads these set offs,
and brings B into debt, and then, according to
the theory of the gentleman from Queen Anne's,
(Mr. Spencer.) the jury has to render a verdict |
against the plaintiff, and makes him pay the
costs , whereas, if A had paid the debt when It
was due, there would have been no necessity for
the suit.
There is another effect to which I wish to call
the attention of the Convention, viz: that by
this process you would hasten the payment of
these accounts on the part of the plaintiff.
This principle, with the modification which the
gentleman from Queen Anne's his suggested, that
the set-off should be due at the institution of the
suit, I would have no objection to having incorporated
into the law of Maryland. But if you
introduce this provision into the constitution,
where will you stop? In my part of the coun-
try, it is a favorite idea that the statute of lim-
itation shall not be pleaded, except under oath
that the debt had been paid. If the proposition
now under consideration be introduced, some
gentleman may perhaps introduce that, and the
one would be as appropriate in the Constitution
as the other, and the same might be affirmed of
divers other propositions. Thus your Constitu-
tion, as has been said by my friend, would be as
large as Dorsey's laws of Maryland, and instead
of being the Constitution of Maryland, would be
the laws of Maryland. I withdraw the motion.
The question was then taken on the motion of
Mr. Neill to reconsider the vote on the adoption
of the article, and it was decided in the affirmative,
by the following vote:
Affirmative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't, Morgan
Blakistone, Dent, Hopewell, Ricaud, Chambers
of Kent, Mitchell, Donaldson; Dorsey, Wells,
Randall, Kent, Sellman, Brent of Charles, How-
ard, John Dennis, James U. Dennis, Crisfield,
Williams, Hicks, Hodson, Goldsborough, Eccles-
ton, Bowling, Grason, Gaither, Biser, Annan,
Brent of Baltimore city, Schley, Fiery, Neill,
John Newcomer, Harbine, Anderson, Smith,
Parke and Cockey—39.
Negative—Messrs. Lee, Bond, Buchanan, Welch,
Lloyd, Dickinson, Dashiell, Chambers of Cecil,
McLane, McCubbin, Spencer, Wright, McMaster,
Hearn, Fooks, Jacobs, Sappington, McHenry,
Magraw, Carter, Thawley, Gwinn, Stewart of
Baltimore city, Sherwood of Baltimore city, Mi-
chael Newcomer, Brewer, Waters, Weber, Holli-
day, Slicer, Fitzpatrick, Shower and Brown—33.
So the Convention reconsidered their vote on
said 13th article.
The question then recurred on the adoption of
the article.
Mr. SPENCER moved to amend said article, by
adding at the end thereof the following proviso :
"Provided the account in bar or set off shall be
held by the defendant, with notice to the plaintiff
at the time of the institution of the action."
Mr. SPENCER asked the yeas and nays on the
adoption of his amendment, which were ordered,
and being taken, resulted as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Lee, Bond, Buchanan,
Welch, Lloyd, James U. Dennis, Crisfield, Da-
shiell, Hicks, Hodson, Eccleston, Chambers, of
Cecil, Miller, McLane, McCubbin, Spencer,
Wright, Dirickson, McMaster, Hearn, Fooks,
Jacobs, Sappington, McHenry, Magraw, Thaw-
ley, Stewart, of Baltimore city, Sherwood, of |
