its interest in the public works, I would not
advocate the sale of the Chesapeake and Ohio
Canal at this time at any price which is not
to some extent commensurate with its pros-
pective value. Fur that reason I have offered
the supplemental amendment, upon which the
question will be first taken, that the Chesa-
peake and Ohio Canal shall not be sold for a
less sum than $5,000,000. If that addition
is made to it, 1 can support the whole of it,
and will do it with great pleasure. I believe
from my knowledge of that work, and from
all I have heard said upon this floor by those
who are acquainted with it, that the day will
come, and within a short period compara-
tively, when the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal
will be worth fully that sum of money, and
perhaps more. I therefore think it good
policy, while declaring the general principle
that the State ought to divest itself of its
investment in the public works, to reserve that
until its prospective value is such as to cause
it to sell for at least that amount.
Mr. DAVIS, of Washington. On page 278
of the journal, 1 find that "Mr. Hebb sub-
mitted the following amendment: Amend by
adding to the end of the section the words,
and provided, further, that the State's in-
terest. in the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal shall
not be sold for less than $5,000,000. Mr.
Pugh moved to amend by inserting $8,000,000.
Decided in the negative. The question re-
curring upon the adoption of the amend-
ment submitted by Mr. Hebb, it was decided
in the negative.'' This amendment has been
already rejected by the convention.
Mr. HEBB, The amendment I offered was
to another proposition. It is a very different
thing. It is now proposed to add it to an
entirely different proposition.
Mr, DAVIS. The amendment to which it
was moved as an amendment at that time was
this:
" Mr. DUVALL submitted the following
amendment: Amend by adding to the end of
section the words, "provided, however, that
no such sale shall be binding on the State
until the same shall have been ratified by the
general assembly, after having been duly re-
ported to the same."
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Purnell ) The amend-
ment is now offered to a different proposition,
and is in order.
Mr. CLARKE. I will only say with reference
to the amendment of the gentleman from
Frederick that it appears to me to be enter-
ing a little more into detail with reference to
this matter than the convention should do,
The board cannot at once proceed to sell un-
der this section. The legislature bars first to
pass rules and regulations. Then the canal,
under these regulations will have to be ad-
vertised and put up tor sale. Then the sale
itself is to be ratified. It does seem to me
that we are rather going beyond our proper
limits if we undertake before hand, without |
knowing what circumstances may surround
the sale, at the time when the sale shall be
made, to limit or fix the price. It might be
worth five millions now. But suppose at
the time the sale was made, the country had
returned to a specie basis, and that the canal
should be sold upon a specie basis. That to
a certain extent would modify the price. We
are going too far therefore in attempting to
limit the matter. We have a sufficient pro-
tection already. We have the action of a
competent board. The legislature may de-
termine, if they choose, to fix a limit upon
the price. Then the sale made upon those
terms goes before the legislature to be rati-
fied; and if the legislature thinks it has been
sold for too small an amount, they will reject
the sale. Ill that way we have the popular
expression brought to bear upon the question
what price shall be paid for the canal, 1
would rather leave it therefore to the popular
opinion, expressed through two legislatures,
to fix the price for this canal than that we
should undertake now, without knowing
whether the sale will be made upon a specie
basis, or upon what basis it will be made, to
fix the limitation. I would rather trust the
legislative expression of two legislatures,
when the matter shall have been agitated be-
fore the people and discussed by them.
Mr. SCHI.EY. The gentleman from Prince
George's (Mr, Clarke) will bear me witness
that I was opposed to all details of legisla-
tion, and was willing to place all these public
works upon a general principle. But I am
willing to accept the details already in there-
port, with the addition of others, as the best
and only means, it seems to me,of carrying out
the views I originally entertained upon this
subject. Coming therefore to the question of
details, while I admit that the amendment
proposed by the gentleman throws an addi-
tional safeguard around the Chesapeake and
Ohio Canal; yet I will say for myself, and
for many gentlemen who I am sure think
with me, that we are unwilling that it shall
be sold at any time or under any circum-
stances, for a less sum than $5,000,000;
which although not the present market value
is the prospective market value of the canal.
Mr. SCHLEY demanded the yeas and nays
upon the amendment, and they were or-
dered.
The question being taken, the result was—
yeas 19, nays 47—as follows :
Yeas—Messrs. Cunningham. Daniel, Du-
vall, Earle, Ecker, Gre"ne, Hebb, Hopkins,
Hopper, Jones, of Cecil, Keefer, Schley, Scott,
Smith, of Worcester, Stirling, Stockbridge,
Todd, Wickard, Wooden—19.
Nays—Messrs. Abbolt, Annan, Audoun,
Baker, Belt, Blackiston, Bond, Blown, Carter,
Chambers, Clarke, Davis, of Washington,
Dellinger, Gale, Galloway, Harwood, Hatch,
Henkle, Hoffman, Hollyday, Horsey, John-
son, Kennard, King, Lansdale, Larsh, Lee, |
