were at least thirty or thirty-five supervisors on
one road. There was no provision made for that,
Mr. CONSTABLE replied, that the sole object
was to make the officer elective; and it would
leave the number as they now existed by law.
He had no idea that the Legislature should ap-
point the supervisors for his county; he desired
that they should be elected by the people.
Mr. HICKS said:
That he knew a section of road in his county,
three or four miles in length, upon which there
did not reside a while man, and if the should
pass this amendment they would have to elect
black men to keep the road in repair. To get
the road temporarily improved and repaired, the
commissioners had been obliged for a number of
years to prevail upon some white man living on
another road to take charge of that road for the
accommodation of those who travelled over it.
It seeemed to him that they had better permit the
matter to remain as it now was, for many coun-
ties had laws regulating it, and if they should
adopt this amendment, it would change the en-
the system.
Mr. BUCHANAN thought it was most extraor-
dinary that two quarters of the country should
differ so marvellously. The gentleman from
Dorchester had said that in his county it was
difficult to get any one to serve in this capacity.
He would say for his section, that there was a
great deal of rivalry in regard to this office.—
During the campaign, the people would pass by
subjects which he and his colleagues thought were
of great importance, and talk of the bad manage-
ment of the roads. He desired that they should
have good roads, and in order to accomplish this
object, he wished to get rid of the present mode
of appointments of the supervisors. The proposition
of his friend from Cecil, [Mr. Constable,]
met his views. They should give to the office,
in the estimation of the candidate, the impor-
tance which the people attached to it; for if they
desired to get a man to serve for an office, they
should elevate his conceptions of that office.—
They should let him know that he was to be
judged of for that office by his fellow-citizens—
that he was to be put on the same ticket with
the judges and other officers of the State and
county, and his life upon it, it would inspire him
to the performance of his duty, and the roads
would be in all particulars much better managed
and regulated than under the old system of ap-
pointing by the commissioners. Besides, these
county commissioners who made these appoint-
ments, did not supervise these supervisors; but
the people who were interested in these roads,
every step they took among these infernally bad
roads, would inquire who were these supervis-
ors, who were responsible, and they would make
the air resound with their complaints. If they
should adopt the elective system, a man's pride
would be incited, and he would say, the people
will act on my conduct, and therefore I must be
up and doing.
Mr. BROWN would undertake to say that in
his district there were no less than fifteen super- |
visors of roads. If they should undertake to
elect supervisors, they ought to limit the num-
ber in certain districts. Were they to elect fif-
teen supervisors to attend to the roads in their
district?
Mr. CONSTABLE. One hundred and fifteen, if
necessary.
Mr. MCHENRY thought it would he a very
great inconvenience to elect supervisors for
every mile. The plan adopted in the northern
States was to elect one for each district, and it
was his duty to keep the roads in order. He
provided himself with all the necessary imple-
ments to discharge his duty, and was a responsi-
ble person—responsible to the law and to those
who elected him, and in every respect bound to
keep the roads in repair. He had travelled a
good deal in the northern States, and had been
struck with the excellent roads they had there,
which was to be attributable to the fact that
they had one man, who was responsible to the
people and the law, and who was elected by the
people.
Mr. JOHN NEWCOMER moved the previous
question, which was seconded, and the main
question ordered, viz:—on the adoption of the
amendment offered by Mr. CONSTABLE.
Mr, CONSTABLE demanded the yeas and nays,
Which were ordered,
And being taken, resulted as follows:
Affirmative— Messrs. Morgan, Blakistone, Sell.
man, Buchanan, Bell, Chandler, Constable, Mil-
er, Bowie, Spencer, George, Wright, Dirickson,
Jacobs, Shriver, Johnson, Gaither, Biser, An-
nan, Sappington, Stephenson, McHenry, Magraw,
Nelson, Carter, Gwinn, Stewart, of Baltimore
city, Brent of Baltimore city, Sherwood of Bait.
city, Ware, Schley, Fiery; Neill, John Newcom-
er, Harbine, Michael Newcomer, Brewer, An-
derson, Weber, Fitzpatrick, Smith, Parke and
Cockey—43.
Negative—Messrs. Chapman, pres't.; Dent,
Lee, Chambers of Kent, Mitchell, Donaldson,
Wells, Randall, Kent, Lloyd, Sherwood of Tal-
bot, Colston, John Dennis, Williams, Hicks, Hodson,
Goldsborough, Eccleston, Phelps, Tuck,
Sprigg, McCubbin, McMaster, Hearn, Fooks,
Thawley, Hardcastle, Kilgour, Waters, Hollyday
and Brown—31.
So the amendment was adopted.
The question then recurred on agreeing to the
section as amended.
Mr. CONSTABLE demanded the yeas and nays,
Which were ordered,
And being taken, resulted as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Blakistone, Buchanan,
Bell, Chandler, Constable, Miller, Bowie, Spen-
cer, George, Wright, Dirickson, Jacobs, Shriver,
Johnson, Gaither, Biser, Annan, Sapping-
ton, Stephenson, McHenry, Magraw, Nelson
Carter, Gwinn, Stewart of Baltimore city, Brent
of Baltimore city, Ware, Schley, Fiery, Neill,
John Newcomer, Harbine, Michael Newcomer,
Brewer, Anderson, Weber, Fitzpatrick, Smith,
Parke, Shower, Cockey and Brown—42. |
