to the city of Baltimore. I ask the yeas and
nays on the adoption of the amendment of the
gentleman from Prince George's, (Mr. BOWIE.)
The yeas and nays were accordingly ordered
on agreeing to the amendment of Mr. BOWIE, and
being taken, resulted as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Blakistone, President pro
tem., Dent, Morgan, Hopewell, Ricaud, Lee,
Dorsey, Wells, Randall, Kent, Weems, Dalrymple,
ple, Bond, Sollers, Brent of Charles, Ridgely,
John Dennis, Dashiell, Williams, Hicks, Hodson,
Goldsborough, Eccleston, Phelps, Bowie. Tuck,
Sprigg, McCubbin, Bowling, Dirickson, McMas-
ter, Hearn, Fooks, Jacobs, Gaither, Schley,
Fiery, Neill, John Newcomer, Davis, Kilgour,
Waters, Weber and Smith—45.
Negative—Messrs. Howard, Buchanan, Welch,
Lloyd, Sherwood of Talbot, Colston, Constable,
Miller, McLane, Spencer, Grason, George,
Wright, Shriver, Biser, Annan, Sappington, Ste-
phenson, McHenry, Magraw, Nelson, Carter,
Thawley, Stewart of Caroline, Hardcastle,
Gwinn, Stewart of Baltimore city, Brent of Bal-
timore city, Sherwood of Baltimore city, Presst-
man, Ware, Harbine, Michael Newcomer, Brew-
er, Anderson, Hollyday, Fitzpatrick, Parke, Ege,
Shower, Cockey and Brown— 43.
So the amendment was adopted.
The section as amended was then agreed to.
Mr. BOWIE gave notice that on to-morrow he
should move to reconsider the vote of the Con-
vention on the amendment submitted by Mr
CRISFIELD and adopted by the Convention as the
9th section of the report, and also that part of the
report relating to the judiciary of Baltimore.
Mr. JOHN NEWCOMER gave notice that on to-
morrow he should move to reconsider the vote of
the Convention on the amendment offered by Mr.
DONALDSON, on the 11th of April, as the 21st sec-
tion, providing for the mode of changing the Con-
stitution.
Mr. RANDALL also gave notice that at the same
time he should move to reconsider the vote of
the Convention on that section of the report of
the committee on the judiciary, abolishing the
Chancery court.
The Convention then took up for consideration
the following amendment offered by Mr. MERRICK,
on the third instant :
"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 thousand dol-
lars, 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 "
The question pending on the 3d inst., was on
the amendment offered by Mr. BOWIE, to the
amendment, to strike out "two thousand" and In-
sert in lieu thereof "twenty-five hundred."
Mr. TUCK moved to amend the amendment of
101 |
Mr. MERRICK. by striking therefrom the following
words:
"And for the allowance! and payment to said
officers respectively of fixed annual salaries, not
to exceed two thousand 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. TUCK agreed with those gentlemen who
contended that the county authorities ought not fix
the salaries and extra allowances of these offi-
cers. He thought that the Legislature should
fix their compensation by law, so that when the
people looked at the statute book, they could tell
what these officers received. Uniformity of
charges and compensation could be secured in no
other way.
Mr. BROWN said:
That the fees of officers were fixed by law, and
they had tried to reduce them, but had never
been able to succeed. He was willing to take
the gentleman's amendment, provided he put a
a limit on it.
Mr. SPENCER made some remarks, which will
be published hereafter.
Mr. TUCK, was no more in favor of fees than
other men, on the contrary, he had always been
opposed to them.
Mr. SPENCER. You leave them open.
Mr. TUCK replied, that he made it obligatory
upon the Legislature, to adopt some mode of
charges. This did not necessarily imply charges
by fees. The Legislature would be obliged to
take up this subject at its first session, and if
there had been this outcry, they would do some-
thing to remedy the evil.
The gentleman answers, that the Legislature
will be less willing than himself to do jus-
tice to the people. He, (Mr. Tuck.) would
think that the salary system for clerks and regis-
ters was the best system, but he was willing to
limit the amount they should receive, whether
by fees, salaries, or in any other way. But
let the Legislature attend to this duty. Make
it imperative and they will act.
Mr. RICAUD stated that in some offices the
fees were much less than $2,500; while in Balti-
more they were much greater. He wished to
pay the office-hire, clerk hire, etc., out of the
fees of the office, wherever they would justify it.
Mr. Bowie remarked that the amendment of
the gentleman from Prince George's, [Mr.
Tuck,] left the whole question to the legisla-
ture.
Mr. SPENCER said:
That as long as the clerks were paid out of the
fees of office, just so long would they be kept
up high, for the benefit of clerks and subordinates
in the office. There would be no inducement to
reduce them. This was the proper time and.
place to prevent the continuance of this evil.
Mr. RANDALL said:
That he did not believe there was a lawyer in
the Convention who would undertake to look at
a fee bill and declare whether it was correct or
not. When brought to him, he had invariably |
