|
Mr. MORGAN moved to strike out the word
"eighteen" and insert the word "fifteen; "
so that the salary of the commissioner of the
land office should be $1, 500 a year.
Upon this question Mr. MORGAN asked for
the yeas and nays, and they were ordered.
The question was then taken, by yeas and
nays, and resulted — yeas 16, nays 47 — as
follows:
Yeas— Messrs. Annan, Bond, Briscoe,
Brown, Dennis, Gale, Horsey, Johnson, Lee,
Marbury, Morgan, Parker, Parran, Turner,
Wickard, Wilmer— 16.
Nays — Messrs. Goldsborough, President;
Abbott, Audoun, Baker, Blackiston, Carter,
Chambers, Cunningham, Cushing, Daniel,
Davis, of Washington. Dellinger, Earle, Eck-
er, Farrow, Greene, Harwood, Hebb, Hop-
kins, Hopper, Jones, of Cecil, Keet'er, Ken-
nard, Kin?, Lansdale, Markey, McComas,
Miller, Mullikin, Murray, Negley, Peter,
Pugh, Purnell, Robinette, Russell, Sands,
Schley, Smith, of Carroll, Smilh, of Worces-
ter, Sneary, Stilling, Stockbridge, Swope,
Sykes, Valliant, Wooden— 47.
The amendment was accordingly rejected.
Mr. KING moved to strike out the word
"now" in line ten.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. HEBB. The provision in the old con-
stitution makes no provision for a new elec-
tion. The question arose after the first term
expired; and although there was no provis-
ion made to elect another, yet there was one
nominated and elected. I move to amend by
inserting in line three, after the words,
" sixty-nine, " the words, "and on the same
day in every sixth year thereafter. "
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. DANIEL moved to insert in line eleven,
after the word " office, " the words '£ or such
as may hereafter be prescribed by law. "
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. BRISCOE: I move to strike out the
whole of the second section; and I submit
the motion for the purpose of eliciting some
information upon the necessity for this office.
As the constitution now stands, provision
is made for a commissioner of the land office
This constitution was adopted in 1850.
Subsequent to that time, the legislature of
this State, under a law termed the riparian
bill, has diminished the revenues of that office
to such an extent, I believe, as to make them
no longer sufficient to support this officer.
I know that the present incumbent of the
office was elected under the impression that
the fees of the office would be sufficient to
support and sustain him. In consequence of
the passage of the riparian bill prohibiting
the issuing of warrants for taking up lands. on
the banks of navigable waters in the State,
the fees of the office were so much diminished
that they were not sufficient to sustain him.
The legislature, to give him the support
which the passage of that bill bad taken from
|
him, clothed him with the duties of keener of
the chancery records in the city of Annapolis,
and also attached to his income that salary.
As one of the legislature 1 voted for that bill
last winter under the impression that it was
nothing more than due to him and due to
his position, and the circumstances under
which he took the office, that he should have
additional compensation fur his services in
order to keep him.
The clause relating to his salary is I think
a departure from the ordinary and sound rule
concerning public offices. It gives him a
salary instead of allowing his support to be
derived from the fees incident to his office.
On that ground I should object to the adop-
tion of this section. I think that it is a bad
principle in all offices, which are dependent
upon fees. The general rule should be to
have the fees paid to the officer instead of
being paid into the treasury.
Now, the question is: What reason have
we for incorporation this section It create
forever an office with a salary of $1, 800 a
year, accompanied by the performance of
certain duties for fees, as keeper of the chan-
cery record and as commissioner of the land
office? The fact is admitted that by reason
of the legislation of the State, passed, I
believe, some two or three years ago, the
duties of the commissioner of 'he land office
have been immeasurably diminished. We
know very well that the only duties he has
to perform now, as an ordinary tiling, in the
land office, are to issue his warrants to take.
up some vacant lands in Allegany or the
western part of the State. These applications
come in very few and far between. So far
then as the absolute necessity of keeping up
that office at a salary 'and an expense, I deny
that there is any neces ity for it at this time.
J should like to inquire of some gentleman.
of the convention who is conversant with
his duties as keeper of the chancery records,
what are the duties imposed upon him for
which we propose to give him this salary?
Is there a necessity for it? If there is any
occasion for such an officer, I am willing that
he should receive a fair remuneration for his
services. Perhaps the gentleman from Anne
Arundel (Mr. Miller) can tell us what are
the duties now required of the keeper of the
chancery record, and if the duties necessarily
required of that officer are such as would
justify us in giving this salary.
Without this information I cannot vote for
the section as it now stands. I wish to learn
if it is the case that the duties connected
with these two offices are merely nominal at
this time, so. as not to justify us in establish-
ing a salary of $1, 500, $1, 800, or even
$1, 000. We all know very well that the
court of chancery has been abolished for the
last ten years in the State of Maryland Is
it not a mere matter of form to have an offi-
cer in the city of Annapolis, to go once or
|
