ty in regard to charges—for he was opposed to
any invidious distinctions against the citizens of
this State, or in favor of citizens of other States.
Incorporated companies had been in the habit of
charging less rates of transportation for passen-
gers coming from Wheeling to Baltimore, than
from Cumberland to Baltimore, making a dis-
crimination against our own citizens. He did
not propose to interfere with vested rights under
any existing contract or charter, but proposed
that no charters should be granted or renewed,
or given, without requiring this uniformity of
rates. The proposition was just and equitable,
and he hoped it would be adopted.
Mr. JOHNSON would vote with pleasure for this
proposition, if it made a uniform system. For
eighteen years his life had been dedicated either
in public or private capacity, to protecting or de-
fending both railroads and canals, but he thought
that this discrimination was invidious. Laws
which had been made were subject to repeal, and
he had been called on a hundred times to have
them repealed.
Mr. MCHENRY was under the impression that
this was a subject for the Legislature, and was
not proper to be incorporated into the Constitu-
tion. He should, therefore, vote against it,
whether it was correct in itself or not. He
moved the previous question.
The demand for the previous question was se-
conded, and the main question ordered, viz :
On agreeing to the proposition of Mr. BRENT.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city, moved that the
question be taken by yeas and nays;
Which being ordered,
Appeared as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't, Morgan,
Lee, Sherwood, of Talbot, John Dennis, Consta-
ble, Miller. Bowie, Dirickson, McMaster, Jacobs,
Shriver, Johnson, Gaither, Biser, Stephenson.
Thawley, Hardcastle, Brent, of Baltimore city,
Sherwood, of Baltimore city. Michael New-
comer, Hollyday, Fitzpatrick, Smith and Shower
—25.
Negative—Messrs. Blakistone, Dent, Donald-
son, Wells, Randall, Kent. Howard, Bell, Lloyd,
Colston, Williams, Hicks, Hodson, Goldsborough,
Eccleston, Phelps, McLane, Tuck, Sprigg, Mc-
Cubbin, Bowling, Spencer, Grason, George,
Wright, Fooks, Thomas, Annan, McHenry, Ma-
graw, Carter, Gwinn, Stewart, of Baltimore city,
Ware, Schley, Fiery, Neill, John Newcomer,
Harbine, Waters, Cockey and Brown—42.
So the amendment was rejected,
Mr. HICKS then moved to amend the report by
adding at the end thereof the following, as an
additional section:
"That it shall be the duty of the Legislature,
whenever a majority of the delegates from the
Eastern Shore shall require it, to pass an act au-
thorising the qualified voters of the Eastern Shore
of this State, at the next regular election there-
after, to determine for or against a withdrawal
of that part of the State of Maryland, known as
the Eastern Shore, from the Western Shore, for
the purpose of uniting the same with the State
of Delaware) provided such withdrawal and |
union be peaceable, mutual, and in accordance
with the authority of the Congress of the United
States."
Mr, HICKS moved that the question be taken
by yeas and nays;
Which being ordered,
Appeared as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Lee, Sellman, Bell, Sher-
wood, of Talbot, John Dennis, Hicks, Hodson
Goldsborough, Eccleston, Phelps, Bowie, Mc-
Cubbin, Dirickson, McMaster, Fooks, Jacobs,
Johnson, Biser, Thawley, Hardcastle, Brent, of
Baltimore city, Neill, Michael Newcomer, Kil-
gour. Fitzpatrick, Shower and Brown—27.
Negative— Messrs. Chapman, Pres't, Morgan,
Blakistone, Dent, Donaldson, Wells, Randall,
Kent, Howard, Welch, Lloyd, Colston, Wil-
liams, Constable, Miller, McLane, Tuck, Sprigg,
Bowling, Spencer, Grason, George, Wright,
Thomas, Shriver, Gaither, Annan, Sappington,
Stephenson, McHenry, Magraw, Carter, Gwinn,
Stewart of Baltimore city, Sherwood of Balti-
more city. Ware, Schley, Fiery, John Newcom-
er, Harbine, Waters, Anderson, Weber, Holly-
day, Smith and Cockey—46.
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. PHELPS desired to call the attention of the
Convention to a fact with regard to its business.
They had passed a resolution determining that
no new business should originate on Monday,
and that no report should be acted upon except
reports from the revisory committee. Unless
they should now take up the legislative report,
so that it could be referred to the committee on
revision, it could not be taken up at all.
Mr. THOMAS desired the Convention to take
up the third section of the legislative report
heretofore passed over informally, fixing the
terms of senators. It would be remembered
that the gentleman from Anne Arundel struck
out one senator, with the intention of leaving in
office the seven senators elected last fall; and
qualifying those senators holding over, so as to
leave four others of the other class, added to the
seven, to constitute one half of the Senate. He
was in favor of leaving the Senate as it stood in
the bill originally reported—the whole Senate to
be elected in November next He desired the
Convention to dispose of the question, that the
bill might go to the committee on revision.
Mr. BOWIE was utterly opposed to taking up
this branch of the legislative report. They had
already, according to his understanding, tho-
roughly settled the question. He recollected that
the question had been debated, and the vote was
taken, and it was determined that the present
senators, without regard to their politics, were
not to be disturbed. They had been elected
by the people, and he went upon The same
ground that he took in relation to the Governor,
that being in office, and having been elected by
the people, they should not disturb him. He
then stated that he would take the same course
with regard to the senators, because they had
been elected by the people.
So far as his understanding of the question |
