up these bonds; we will get an equal amount
of Maryland bonds, and give them to the State
of Maryland for our bonds." In this way
we will get out of any difficulty without any
loss and without any litigation. Therefore I
am opposed to this amendment,
Mr. Pass. I think the convention needs
no other evidence than that which is trans-
spiring around us daily, to convince them
that this is not a proper question to be deter-
mined by this convention. In the first place,
we have had this subject up before this body
on one or two former occasions. It was then
pretty successfully cornered, and committed
to a special committee; and now that com-
mittee have made two reports upon it.
Now, I am in favor of the amendment of
the gentleman from Baltimore city (Mr. Stir-
ling,) because it modifies the general propo-
sition to a certain extent, making it more con-
formable to my views in regard to this matter ;
that is, that we ought to let this subject
entirely alone. And if we cannot let it alone
altogether, then I will favor that proposition
which lets it alone as much as possible. I
favor the amendment of the gentleman from
Baltimore city, because it proposes that we
shall not act in regard to at least three of the
unproductive works of internal improvement
of the State. That more nearly approaches
my idea of the way in which we should treat
this question. We should look at it, I think,
as it claims to be looked at here. We feel
strongly upon this question. Every gentle-
man who speaks upon this question, shows
that be feels strongly upon it. As has been
ably remarked here, we were not sent here
by the people to represent them upon this
question. And it is very evident that we do
not represent them, because there is no arriv-
ing at the tact whether there is a majority
here in favor of one or the. other systems of
disposing of the public works. We show
clearly by our action here every day, that we
do not properly represent the people of Mary-
land upon this question, because we do not
know what. we want.
I have felt undecided upon this matter
upon two or three different occasions. So far
as I am personally concerned, I am in favor
of selling the public works of the State; but
that is only my individual notion. I am
here in another capacity, as a representative
of the people of Maryland, and I was sent
here tor a specific purpose. And when I find
that anything will in the slightest degree in-
terfere with the carrying out of the import-
ant purpose for which I was sent here, that
may interfere with the main object of my
being here, for that reason, if no other, I
shall oppose it.
Now, as I stated at the outset, it seems
clearer every day that upon this question
there is no unity of opinion upon the one
side of the house or upon the other. The
people did not canvass this question when |
they sent us here. They may do so when
they send their representatives to the legisla-
ture; but with that we have nothing to do.
We came here to make a constitution. We
came here, after a very general canvass of
the State, to do certain work. I am perfectly
willing to gay, and I acknowledge th it the gen-
tleman from Washington (Mr. Negley) in
that respect is right enough—that we are
here as the representatives "of the people ill
other ways, and should in that capacity con-
sider every subject that ia presented to us.
But the gentleman knows that there overrides
every other consideration that exists as a
consideration in the State of Maryland, or
that has existed for the last year—there exists
a consideration which overrides and sinks
out of sight every other one. And I shall
not, by any act of mine, injure in the slight-
est degree, or in any way affect injuriously
that great principle, for the carrying out of
which this convention was assembled.
For that reason, more than any other, I
am opposed to interfering with, or providing
any means for the sale of the public works.
I throw out of the question my own personal
feelings, for so far as I am personally con-
cerned, I repeat I am in favor of disposing of
all the public works of the State.
What argument has been urged in favor
of disposing of these unproductive works?
Every argument lends to the one conclusion
that they will bring nothing whatever to the
State. Why sell them then I The gentle-
man from Baltimore county (Mr. Ridgely) in
his argument upon the Chesapeake and Ohio
Canal, admitted that the claims of the outside
creditors would still exist unimpaired against
the work; admitting that they do exist, and
that they are $2,250,000; and that the cor-
poration buying the work, would buy it
subject to these claims. Now what corpora-
tion in the State, or upon the face of the
earth, will give to the State of Maryland
one dollar for that unproductive work, if
they are at the same lime bound lo pay those
outside creditors? The gentleman says the
legislature will provide that those outside cred-
itors will be paid. When the legislature makes
that provision it provides at once that the State
of Maryland shall receive not one doll >r, abso-
lutely nothing for the work. Then why sell it?
That is a question, an answer to which I have
been listening to hear ever since this discus-
sion was first commenced. No one gives
any financial reason for selling it. What
benefit is it to the State to sell it, when she
will receive nothing for it? How much of
the State debt will be paid off by this sale, if
nothing is received with which to pay it off?
And on the other hand, is there no injury
done by selling it; The representatives
from some of the counties of the State claim
that very serious injury will be done. Gen-
tlemen upon all sides of this house show by
the feeling they exhibit, that there is a pos- |
