Are we not overburdened with taxation in
reference to the cause of the country, which
is now being fought out upon the field of
battle? Is not that enough to stagger the
people, when they see what they have borne,
and what they will be called, upon to bear
when they are still more brought under this
taxation? Is it not wise and prudent if we
can, to relieve our people entirely from this
taxation and extinguish the public debt?
The people will hail it as one of the greatest
measures inaugurated by this convention.
They will say, we have incurred heavy debts
by embarking in these public works. We
have been apprehensive lest the legislature
should sell these stocks and divert the pro-
ceeds to some other purpose; and if they
should, we do not know how, in this great
financial crash which may come, we should
be able to pay this great public debt.
If the public debt can be paid off from the
public stocks, without touching the canals,
as seems probable, you relieve the people at
once. You wipe out the debt; you wipe out
the taxation. If this section is adopted, there
can be but one appropriation made of these
works—the application of the proceeds to the
extinguishment of the public debt; and the
debt will be extinguished. The board con-
stituted will be a board, which under all the
circumstances of the case, will act with pru-
dence, wisdom and discretion; a board upon
whose action, as your financial agents, their
own reputation depends; not of irresponsible
appointee's of the legislature, but the custo-
dians of your treasury, who desire to write
upon the page of history of the State of
Maryland, a bright financial era during their
administration of the office. I have never
known a proposition like this, holding out to
the people of the State such a happy deliver-
ance from taxation and debt, by the conver-
sion of its public stocks to the extinguish-
ment of the public debt.
Mr. RIDGELY. I do not propose to argue
this question at all, but rise simply for the
purpose of explaining the vote which I shall
give. I voted for the amendment of the
gentleman from Baltimore city (Mr. Stirling)
which was adopted by the house, under an
entire misapprehension of the effect which
that amendment would have upon the propo-
sition. I supposed that while it gave the
power to these commissioners to sell the Bal-
timore and Ohio railroad, except the Wash-
ington branch, and all other works, except
the three canals, subject to the qualifications
and restrictions imposed in the section itself,
all the amendment contemplated was to ex-
cept these three canals from the constitutional
requisition upon the part of the legislature
upon the agents appointed to make the sales.
I had no idea that the design of that propo-
sition was to tie the hands of the legislature
from making any disposition of these three
canals in all time to come, so long as this |
constitution should exist. I did not so in-
terpret the language of the amendment.
I did not see that it would have such an
effect.
But in the argument which has been made
here this morning by the gentleman from
Washington (Mr, Negley) and by the gen-
tleman from Prince George's (Mr. Clarke,)
not denied by the gentleman from Baltimore
city (Mr, Stirling,) it seems to me to be con-
ceded that the effect of adopting this amend-
ment would be entirely to prohibit the legis-
lature from the exercise of any powder what-
ever over these three classes of public stocks.
If the convention desire to prohibit the legis-
lature from all control under all circum-
stances over these public works, they will of
course vole for this proposition. But as I do
not think it would be wise to restrain the leg-
islature from the control and supervision
over these works) I shall vote against the prop-
osition. I make these few remarks to explain
what might otherwise appear an inconsistent
vote upon my part,
Mr. MILLER. I do not propose to say a
great deal upon the proposition now before
the house, lam certain that if the amend-
ment offered by the gentleman from Balti-
more (Mr. Stirling) is adopted, it will imperil
the passage of the remaining part of the ma-
jority report. The gentleman from Cecil,
and the gentleman from Allegany, and other
gentlemen who have argued in favor of the
amendments have supposed, or their argu-
ment is, that if we adopt the majority report,
we shall be making some provision for the
sale of the State's interest in these canal
companies. I do not so read the order. I
do not so understand the reception of the
majority report. We are simply authorizing
this board, under and subject to such regula-
tions as the legislature may from time to
time prescribe, to sell the State's in-
terest in these works. I was astonished to
hear so good a lawyer as my friend from
Baltimore city (Mr. Stirling) say that this
report was susceptible of the interpretation
that if the legislature made no rules or regu-
lations, these officers whom we have consti-
tuted a board should go on and sell without
them. I think upon reflection, that any law-
yer looking at this majority report, should
come to an entirely different conclusion, as I
am certain that every court in the State
would.
What does it mean? There were two
branches to it. The first branch gives these
officers the power to exchange the interest of
the State in the Baltimore and Ohio railroad
for State stocks, independent of all provisions
or regulations which the legislature may
make upon the subject, absolutely. They
may do that in their discretion. They may
exchange when the exchange can be perfected.
They have a right to do it, and there is an
end of it. |
