seems to me not. I should be very glad to
know that we could transfer the duties to
some other officer without costing the State
what it now costs; but as at present advised
unless the gentleman can show me some way
of doing it, I do not see bow that officer can
be dispensed with.
Mr. BRISCOE, Upon reading over this
clause I find one point that I wish to under-
stand. I wish to inquire, whether under the
construction of this section, the fees of the
commissioner of the land office are to be paid
into the treasury, and the lees as keeper of
the chancery records also? I should think
from the wording of the clause that his fees
as commissioner of the land office only are to
be paid into the treasury,
The PRESIDENT. I understand that the
commisioner of the land office receives a stip-
ulated salary, as keeper of the chancery re-
cord?, under the existing law, of $500; and
that all the fees are to go into the treasury.
Mr. DANIEL. It was the intention of the
committee that all the fees should be paid
into the treasury, and he should receive the
$1,800 as a substitute.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. From the report to the
last general assembly, it appears that the
amount of his fees as keeper of the chancery
records for the last two years was $161.47;
less than $100 a year.
Mr. DANIEL moved to amend by inserting
after the word "office," in line sixteen, the
words," both as commissioner of the hind
office and keeper of the chancery records."
The amendment was agreed to.
The question recurred upon Mr. BRISCOES
motion to strike out the second section.
Mr. BRISCOE, I have no doubt that at the
time of the adoption of this constitution, and
just at the time that court was abolished, the
duties of the office of keeper of the chancery
records was of some importance. Therefore
I think that when the legislature undertook
to designate the sum of $1,000 as the salary,
it was probably a very proper sum. But that
court having expired ten or twelve years ago.
under the facts stated by the gentleman from
Anne Arundel (Mr. Miller,) and only four or
five cases having been transmitted to the coun-
ties during the last year, it seem? to me that
the duties now required of that officer, or of
the party who holds both of these offices,
would not require the time of one man for a
day in the week. From all the information
I can obtain, the duties we are about to im-
pose upon this officer would not consume
eight hours in any one week throughout the
whole year. I ask the convention it they are
prepared to constitute such an office, and to
designate a salary of $1,800 a year, to stand
for the next ten or fifteen, or it may be twenty
years?
I agree with my friend from Anne Arundel
(Mr. Miller,) that there is no necessity for
abolishing the other office, or rather there is |
very likely a necessity for retaining both of
them; but the duties to be performed are of
such limited extent that 1 cannot see how it
should be necessary to give a salary of $1,800.
You give the executive officer of the State
$3,600. I do not know what change the
executive committee may propose in that. I
merely ask, is there the necessity fur these
two offices with that salary? I am not pre-
pared to sustain it, with the light I have upon
the subject. I have no doubt you could get
an officer in this town, or anywhere in Anne
Arundel county, who, for $600, would come
here and perform the duties of these two
offices efficiently and well.
I do not say this for the purpose of touch-
ing the interest of the present incumbent. I
have no doubt that, being now here with his
family, he should he paid for the time for
which he was elected a suitable compensation,
to furnish him, as he expected when he ac-
cepted the office, an ordinary support. But
I see no reason why we should create this
office and designate such a salary for a per-
manent. office. For that reason I moved to
strike out the section. As the house have
already voted not to substitute $1,500 for
$1,800, it was my only alternative to strike
out the whole section. If it is stricken out 1
will offer a proposition requiring the legisla-
ture of Maryland to provide hereafter for
these offices at a proper salary.
Mr. PURNELL. I think the subject was fully
examined by the commiltee, although the
question before them was not so much of the
curtailment of the expense, or as to curtailing
the labors imposed upon this officer, as of
making him a salaried officer, and requiring
whatever perquisites might come into his
hands to be paid into the treasury of the State.
The gentleman holding the office at this time
submitted to the committee a statement, run-
ning some four or five years, of the fees re-
ceived, and there had been an average perhaps
of $2,200 or $2,300 paid into his hands as re-
ceipts; and the scale ran from above $1,500 up
to $2,700, for his fees and salary for his two
offices of commissioner of the land office and
keeper of the chancery records. 1 was under
the impression that perhaps a greater number
of fees would come into his hands by receiving
fees rather than a salary; but he preferred hav-
ing a certain sum to this uncertainty; and we
thought the State's interest would be fully
protected even in increasing the salary to the
amount now proposed, and what he claims,
$1,800. It the State receives $2,300 an the
average of a certain number of years, accord-
ing to his data, certainly we could not pay
him out. of that a less sum than $1,800.
The PRESIDENT. I understood the commis-
sioner to say that he had received $2,000 on
the average; that the lees had amounted to
$2,000.
Mr. PURNELL. There is another important
reason, and I think a very valuable one, why |
