with the clerks of their counties, and would allow
whatever the law would permit. It was impos-
sible for this Convention to fix the salaries, and
it must be left to the Legislature. He had no
intention of imputing fraud upon the clerks now
in office; for the fee bill was so drawn up that it
was susceptible of various constructions, and
there was undoubtedly an honest difference of
opinion among those who were in the different
offices, upon the construction.
Mr. JOHN NEWCOMER demanded the yeas and
nays,
Which were ordered,
And being taken,
Resulted, yeas 22; nays 48—as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Lee, Dickinson, Sher-
wood, of Talbot, Tuck, Grason, George, Fooks,
Jacobs, Thomas, Shriver, Stephenson, Magraw,
Nelson. Carter, Schley, Fiery, John Newcomer,
Harbine, Michael Newcomer, Brewer, Anderson,
and Parke—22.
Negative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't, Morgan,
Dent, Hopewell, Ricaud, Mitchell, Dorsey, Wells,
Randall, Kent, Weems, Brent, of Charles, Jeni-
fer, Howard, Bell, Welch, Ridgely, John Den-
nis, James U. Dennis, Dashiell, Hicks, Golds-
borough, Phelps, McCullough, Miller, Bowie,
Sprigg, Wright, Dirickson, McMaster, Johnson,
Gaither, Annan, McHenry, Thawley, Stewart,
of Caroline, Gwinn, Stewart, of Baltimore city,
Brent, of Baltimore city, Sherwood, of Baltimore
city, Waters, Weber, Hollyday, Fitzpatrick,
Smith, Shower, Cockey and Brown—48.
So the Convention refused to accept the substi-
tute.
The question again recurred on the adoption
of the amendment as offered by Mr. FITZPAT-
RICK and amended on the motion of Mr.
RIDGELY.
Mr. HOWARD moved that the question be taken
by yeas and nays,
Which being ordered,
Appeared as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Morgan, Dent, Hopewell.
Ricaud, Chambers of Kent, Dorsey, Howard,
Bell, Welch, Ridgely, John Dennis, James U.
Dennis, Grason, George, McMaster, Thomas,
Shriver, Johnson, Annan, Stephenson, Nelson,
Carter, Gwinn, Stewart of Baltimore city,
Schley, Fiery, Brewer, Anderson, Weber, Hol-
lyday, Fitzpatrick, Cockey, and Brown—33.
Negative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't., Lee,
Mitchell, Wells, Randall, Kent, Weems, Bond,
Brent of Charles, Merrick, Jenifer, Dickinson,
Sherwood of Talbot, Dashiell, Hicks, Hodson,
Goldsborough, Phelps, Miller. Bowie, Tuck,
Sprigg, Spencer, Wright, Dirickson. Fooks,
Jacobs, Gaither, McHenry, Thawley, John New-
comer, Harbine, Michael Newcomer, Waters,
Smith, Parke and Shower—37.
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. STEPHENSON moved to amend the twen-
tieth section by striking out after the word "un-
til" in the twelfth line, to the end of said section,
and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
"The general election next thereafter for del- |
egates to the General Assembly, when a register
shall be elected to fill such vacancy."
Determined in the affirmative.
The twentieth section was then adopted as
amended.
Mr. MERRICK moved to amend the report of
the committee by inserting as the twenty-first
section thereof, the following:
"The legislature shall at its first session after
the adoption of this Constitution adopt some sim-
ple and uniform system of charges in the offices
of clerks of courts and registers, of wills in the
counties of this State and the city of Baltimore,
and for the collection thereof, and for the allowances
and payment to said officers respectively,
of fixed annual salaries, not to exceed two thou-
sand dollars, and such additional allowances as
the local authorities may judge necessary and
proper with reference to the amount of business
to be done for the compensation of assistants."
Mr. BOWIE moved to amend said amendment
by striking out the words "two thousand," and
inserting in lieu thereof "twenty-five hundred."
Mr. SPENCER I ask a division of the question
on the motion to strike out and insert. I do not
desire to fix any sum, I wish the Legislature to
have the whole matter before them, and to fix
the salaries of these officers. If you say their
salary shall not exceed $2,500, the effect will be
that the Legislature will take this amount as a
standard by which to fix the salaries. Therefore
I do not wish to have any indication of this kind.
Mr. RIDGELY. I will he glad if the gentle-
man will withdraw his call for a division, because
it embarrasses some of us in our votes. Some of
us are willing to insert $2,500, but are not dis-
posed to strike out the sum named in the section,
so as to leave the subject to the Legislature.
The division of the question thus embarrasses
me.
Mr. SPENCER. I will gratify the gentleman
and withdraw my call for a division of the mo-
tion.
Mr. THOMAS. There is, in my judgment, a
very mischievous proposition on the face of the
section offered by the gentleman from Charles,
in this particular. We are transferring a sort of
legislative power, the authority to fix salaries for
the whole State, to the local authorities—not ex-
actly the salaries, hut we are authorizing the
local authorities to give what is called additional
compensation, and to provide what shall be, as I
understand it, the compensation for their subor-
dinates. We are about to throw open the elec-
tion of these various officers to the people. The
clerks and registers are to be elected. They
will be nominated by the different parties—it
may or may not be so—to be elected when the
Governor is to be elected, and they are to run on
one and the same ticket with officers of the coun-
ty who are styled local authority.
One is to aid and assist the other. They will
have almost the same sympathies, predilection?
and animosities, and will come into office with
the same feelings. They will be almost one body,
one and the same corporation, I may say, elected
under the same influences. If you give the pow- |
