Allegany, Washington and Montgomery
counties, I tell the gentleman their name is
legion in the city of Baltimore. The scrip
issued by Francis Thomas, its former presi-
dent, covers the whole State.
My theory therefore is that the condition
of the creditors of that company would not
be in the slightest degree affected by the
change of ownership. A fair claim would
be as strong against the new owner as against
the existing owner. The property would be
sold subject to those conditions, whatever
they might be, and the same security would
be at hand for the purpose of meeting the
payment of the creditors' whoever they might
be. And, indeed, I hold, opposite to the
views of the gentleman from Howard county
(Mr. Sands,) a much greater security. Be-
cause if it should be bought by private capi-
talists; it would be conducted with all that
energy, care, industry and capacity of man-
agement which characterizes individual en-
terprise. All experience conclusively dem-
onstrates that individuals are infinitely better
qualifiad to conduct these enterprises than
States or organized political bodies of any
kind.
I only arose to answer that particular view
of this subject. I desire that the members
of this convention will not be misled by any
idea that they are to inflict loss upon. private
creditors by the change of ownership in these
public works, unless they look to the possi-
bilities and peradventures which may turn
up in some very distant period of the future.
It may be possible that in twenty years from
now these creditors would get a hundred
cents on the dollar. But that is a bare pos-
sibility, and one that I think ought not to
enter into the deliberative judgment of this
house, in determining what should be its
present action.
I hold that the true interest of the State
will be promoted by a change of ownership
in that work, and in other public works, I
believe that the State never embarked in any
of those enterprise with a view to any pecu-
niary profit, but simply for the purpose of
developing the resources and wealth of the
State for the benefit of the people at large.
I believe that the interest which the State is
to receive, and was designed to receive from
all these enterprises, was that interest which
would address itself to the individual inter-
ests of her people, and not to her interest in
her political capacity.
Now it would be inferred from the tenor
of the argument of the gentleman, that this
convention was about to make this sale
forthwith; that we were about to confer au-
thority, in pursuance of a constitutional pro-
vision, upon commissioners at once and
without restriction, to effect this sale. Now
the gentleman knows, and every gentleman
here knows, that the second branch of this
proposition is most carefully guarded, and |
in fact devolves upon the legislature the en-
tire power over this subject, because it is in
the power of the legislature to restrain the
sale, to qualify the sale, to control the sale;
and if they think proper to entirely invali-
date any sale of this work that may be made,
so that we are not incurring any danger
whatever in giving this power to agents who
are to exercise it only in this qualified form.
This much in answer to the gentleman from
Howard (Mr. Sands.)
I have one or two words to say upon the
proposition itself, If I understand it, it shall
receive my support, with or without this
last clause, submitting the question to the
people.
Mr. STIRLING. I do not know anything
aboat the facts stated by my friend from
Howard (Mr. Sanda.) But I would ask,
might not this sale affect creditors in this
way? These debts are mere common debts,
and a large part of them barred by limitation.
And any private individual that buys this
interest will plead the limitation. But so
long as the State keeps control, this State
would not plead the limitation.
Mr. RIDGELY. I do not think so. But
even suppose that condition of things should
exist; the legislature is clothed with power
to protect the interests of these people.
A contract of sale cannot be made without
the assent of the legislature. And these peo-
ple can approach the legislature and invoke
its protection, and under such circumstances
will obtain it.
Mr. HEBB. The State of Maryland did
recognize the claims of these creditors, when
in 1842 it passed a law to sell the State's in-
terest in works of internal improvement to
pay the debts of the State. Teat law pro-
vides:
"That before any transfer shall be made
of the interest of the State in the said Chesa-
peake and Ohio Canal, the Chesapeake and
Ohio Canal Company shall in proper form
secure to the holders of scrip and other cred-
itors of said company) the payment of said
scrip and debts within twenty years from the
date of said transfer with annual interest, at
six per cent,, the capital of said bonds to be
payable at the option of said company either
in current money or State bonds outstand-
ing."
Showing that the State in 1842 recognized
these debts. The State has a mortgage upon
the canal to the amount of $15,000,000,
or $16,000,000. Now, any company that
bought this interest would not recogmize these
individual debts to which the gentleman
from Howard (Mr. Sands) refers.
Mr, RIDGELY. Of course the State would
sell subject to all the conditions which sur-
round the property. And if these circum-
stances impaired the value of the property,
of course she would have to take the conse-
quences. |
