tion was accordingly stated to be on the motion
to strike out.
Mr. GWINN demanded the yeas and nays on
agreeing to this motion, which were ordered, and
being taken, resulted as follows :
Affirmative— Messrs. Chapman, Pres't, Morgan,
Blakistone, Dent, Donaldson, Wells, Randall,
Kent, Sellman, Bell, Welch, Lloyd, Sherwood
of Talbot, Colston, John Dennis, Hicks, Hodson,
Goldsborough, Eccleston, Phelps, Constable,
Miller, Bowie, Tuck, McCubbin, Spencer,
Wright, Dirickson, McMaster, Hearn, Fooks,
Jacobs, Thomas, Shriver, Johnson, Gaither,
Biser, Annan, Sappington, Stephenson, Magraw,
Nelson, Thawley, Hardcastle, Gwinn, Stewart
of Baltimore city, Brent of Baltimore city, Sher-
wood of Bait. city, Presstman, Ware, Schley,
Neill, John Newcomer, Harbine, Michael New.
comer, Kilgour, Brewer, Waters, Anderson,
Weber, Fitzpatrick, Smith, Parke, Shower,
Cockey and Brown—68.
Negative— Messrs. Lee, Buchanan, Williams,
McLane, George and McHenry—6.
So the Convention refused to strike out.
The question then recurred on inserting the
amendment moved by Mr. TUCK.
Mr. SHRIVER, demanded the yeas and nays,
which were ordered, and being taken, resulted as
follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Morgan, Blakistone, Dent,
Lee, Mitchell, Donaldson, Well?, Randall, Bu-
chanan, Welch, Lloyd, John Dennis, Williams,
Hicks, Hodson, Goldsborough, Eccleston, Phelps,
McLane, Tuck, George, Dirickson, McMaster,
Hearn, Jacobs, Gaither, McHenry, Schley, John
Newcomer, Kilgour, Waters, Fitzpatrick, Smith
and Cockey—34.
Negative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't, Kent, Sell-
man, Bell, Chandler, Sherwood of Talbot, Col-
ston, Constable, Miller, Bowie, McCubbin, Spen-
cer, Wright, Fooks, Thomas, Shriver, Biser,
Annan, Sappington, Stephenson, Magraw, Nel-
son, Carter, Thawley, Hardcastle, Gwinn, Stewart
of Baltimore city, Brent of Baltimore city,
Sherwood of Baltimore city, Ware, Harbine,
Michael Newcomer, Brewer, Anderson, Weber,
Hollyday, Parke, Shower and Brown—38.
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. BOWIE moved to add to the bill the follow-
ing section:
"The Legislature shall at its first session after
the ratification of this Constitution, provide by
law for the sale of the State Tobacco Warehouses
in the city of Baltimore, and for the withdrawal
of the inspections of tobacco from said city; and
with the proceeds of the sales thereof, to provide
for the building and erection of State Tobacco
Warehouses for the inspection of tobacco, in the
tobacco growing sections of the State; the sur-
plus, if any, after paying the expenses of building
said warehouses, shall be placed to the credit of
the sinking fund, to be applied towards the pay-
ment of the public debt."
Mr. BOWIE desired to state that the value of
the tobacco warehouses in the city of Baltimore
was estimated at one million of dollars. The
tobacco interest? of the State had been for years |
united in this opinion—that the concentration of
the trade in Baltimore city, and the inspection of
the article there, had operated injuriously to
their interests, because it placed the entire con-
trol of the article in the hands of the specula-
tor and buyer. They desired, if it could be
done, to bring back the inspection to the country
as it existed prior to the act 1825, which estab-
lished the warehouses in the city of Baltimore.
They believed it to be for their interest, and the
very same motive which influenced him to vote
against the proposition of his colleague, (Mr.
Tuck,) of having a free system of inspection, or
allowing property to be submitted for inspection
to those who took out license, would induce him,
and he hoped it would operate upon the House,
to pass some provision of this sort, ill order to
place under the power and control of the pro-
ducer, the raw material, and the sale of their
own article, they having felt seriously the incon-
venience arising from the system of the Legisla-
ture, by which they were now forced to send
their produce to the city of Baltimore. He be-
lieved it to be the true theory—to bring it back
to the country, where it was grown. He would
say that it could not be a matter of any moment
to any other portion of the State than to the
planting interest, and the Convention should at
least consult their wishes upon the subject. He
held, upon that question, that it was not our duty
to provide inspections for foreign tobacco within
the limits of this State. They had not the con-
stitutional power to prohibit the introduction of
tobacco from other States here, and it would be
an unwise policy, if they looked to the interests
of the growers at home, to provide for the in-
spection of the foreign article. But he, without
being in favor of a law to prevent the introduc-
tion of tobacco here, would not aid to establish a
protection for foreign tobacco by providing an
inspection for it. But he did not touch that ques-
tion; he would leave it to the Legislature. He
desired them now to impose a duty upon the Le-
gislature to withdraw the places of inspection.
He did not purpose to alter the system at all one
way or the other. He would give it all the
character and force that a State inspection could
give it. He merely wished to bring it back to
those who produced the raw material, and who
desired to become their own agents and sell their
own article in the way that suited them best, and
he would leave the places of inspection in the
counties, to be designated by the Legislature.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city, said:
That he tried to get the floor upon the other
question of inspections, but was not able to do so,
and would therefore claim the indulgence of the
House one moment while he alluded to some
statistics upon this subject. The gentleman from
Prince George's seemed to assume that these
tobacco warehouses were only of interest to the
counties of Maryland. He would furnish the
Convention with statistics to show the amount of
tobacco inspected in Maryland, which was not
grown in the State. He had before him a circu-
lar, signed by Oelricks &, Lurman, a very large
house engaged in the purchase of tobacco for |
