months, and shall thenceforth cease to hold the
office or appointment of which he may be then
the incumbent."
Mr. MCLANE remarked, that the chairman of
the committee on Revision offered an order last
night from that committee, that when they ad-
journed, they should adjourn until to-day at nine
o'clock, and then proceed lo dispose of the busi-
ness from the committee on Revision. There
must have been a general understanding through-
out the Convention that they would not be called
upon to take up any new business, and if they
should open the rule for this order, they would
have to open it for others. He knew that if this
report should come up it would give rise to a good
deal of debate. There were other orders, the
judiciary bill, and several other subjects, which
there was a great desire to bring before the Con-
vention, and why should they bring in this? Be-
sides, this order made a provision which it was
competent for the Legislature to make whenever
it pleased, and it was not necessary that it should
be engrafted upon the Constitution. They had
now closed their accounts, and bad come to dis-
pose of the business from the committee on Re-
vision, and would be detained here until one or
two o'clock to-night. If they should agree to
this motion, the whole thing would have to be
undone and they would have to reopen the ac-
counts. Unless they confined themselves to the
order passed last night, they would be delayed
here until to-morrow.
Mr. DORSEY very much doubted whether the
Legislature had the right to disqualify a judge,
or the Governor or any other officer of the State
from acting in this way. It appeared to him to
be in the nature of a. disqualification, for it deprived
them of the power of acting in any such capaci-
ty, and he thought it was not in the power of the
Legislature to impose this qualification upon Con-
stitutional officers of the State. He asked the
yeas and nays on the motion.
The yeas and nays were ordered, and being
taken, resulted as follows :
Affirmative— Messrs. Blakistone, Dent, Lee,
Dorsey, Wells, Sellman, Dalrymple, John Den-
nis Dashiell, Williams, Goldsborough, Eccle-
ston Sprigg, McCubbin, John Newcomer and
Waters—16.
Negative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't, Morgan,
Hopewell, Ricaud, Weems, Bell, Welch, Ridge-
ly, Lloyd, Sherwood of Talbot, Hicks, Consta-
ble, McCullough, Miller, McLane, Bowling,
Spencer, George, Wright, McMaster, Fooks,
Thomas, Gaither, Biser, Annan, Sappington,
Stephenson, Nelson, Carter, Thawley, Stewart
of Caroline, Stewart of Baltimore city, Brent of
Baltimore city, Sherwood of Baltimore city,
Presstman, Ware, Neill, Michael Newcomer,
Brewer, Anderson, Weber, Hollyday, Fitzpa-
trick, Parke, Shower, Cockey and Brown—47.
So the Convention refused to suspend the rule.
Mr. DORSEY then moved to supend the order
adopted on the 8th inst., for the purpose of taking
up the report of the committee on new
counties; which motion was not agreed to.
Mr. RIDGELY said: |
That he had a proposition to submit to the
House, and he would not do so but for the fact that
since the vote had been had upon the subject, a
very respectable number of the members of the
House, had intimated to him that they had voted
misunderstandingly, and would be glad to have
an opportunity to correct their votes. He re-
ferred to the proposition adopted by the House,
to make stockholders and directors of banks liable
to the amount of their respective shares far
all the debts of the corporation. To that propo-
sition he had no objection, but the Convention
had adopted a further provision that the Legisla-
ture should grant no bank charter except upon
the condition that no director or other officer of
the corporation, should borrow any money from
the corporation, and a further amendment was
adopted, on the motion of the gentleman from
Baltimore city, (Mr. Brent,) providing, that "if
any director or other officer shall be convicted,
upon indictment, of directly or indirectly viola-
ting this article, he shall be punished by fine or
imprisonment, at the discretion of the court."
It was the two latter amendments which he de-
sired to have expunged.
He had no disposition whatever to consume the
time of the Convention, at this late hour of the
session; but pursuaded as he was that these two
latter amendments could be productive of no
good, but would operate to the prejudice of the
constitution, he would move to suspend the rule
for the purpose of enabling him to ask a recon-
sideration of the legislative report, with a view
to strike out the two last amendments adopted
to that provision. It was apparent to him that the
retension of so obnoxious a restriction upon
banks in the constitution, would array a power-
ful element of strength against its adoption,
which otherwise might be passive, if not in its
favor. Beside which, the Legislature was per-
fectly competent to impose such restraints upon
the banks, if the popular voice should demand
it.
Mr. SPENCER said: that a construction of the
amendments had gone forth, which) if true was
something, never intended by this body. The
construction given by lawyers and persons out
of the House, to that portion which related to
stockholders and their liabilities, was that the
stockholders, by that section, were not only
made answerable for their stock—
Mr. THOMAS rose to a point of order, and de-
sired to know whether this was a debateable
question.
The PRESIDENT decided that it was not a de-
bateable question.
Mr. SPENCER said that he would vote for the
motion.
The question was then taken on the motion to
suspend the rules, and it was not agreed to.
Mr. CHAMBERS of Kent, from the committee
on revision, made a report on the report of the
committee on the elective franchise.
Which was read and concurred in.
Mr. JOHN NEWCOMER, submitted the follow-
ing resolution: |
