two days in every week unless they make up
their minds to abandon everything at home.
It takes me just three days to make a round
trip of some 60 miles. To get here on Mon-
day morning, I must leave my home at Elli-
cott's Mills at 4 o'clock Sunday afternoon;
go to Baltimore; lodge there over night; and
come down here the next morning to attend
to my duties. If I want to go home, I must
go to Baltimore city, lay there over night,
and then go up to Ellicott's Mills. The ex-
perience of a week has taught me that one of
two things is almost a necessity. I must
abandon my position here or at home.
Now I say that the public good is very
often involved in the private individual in-
terest. I can serve the State of Maryland six
days out of seven in Baltimore city; but if
we meet here, I may do my best, and unless
I turn Sabbath-breaker I cannot serve it
more than four. I believe that if we remove
to Baltimore the session will be shorter, and
money will be saved to the State, for the
reason that we shall be able to save the de-
liberations, and debates, and action of two
days in the week, fur those who pay the ex-
penses of this Convention. The per diem is
considerable, of course.
As to the precedents for removal, we have
had some very remarkable precedents in late
years. We have had the precedent of remov-
ing from Montgomery to Richmond; and it
is thought by many people that General
Grant contemplates another movement; so
that we shall not lack for precedents.
In the third section of the bill under which
we have met, I find this :
"And he it enacted, That in case a majority
of the ballots cast shall be in favor of the
call of a Convention as aforesaid, then the
said Convention shall meet at the city of Annapolis
on the last Wednesday of April in
the year 1864, and shall continue in session
from day to day until the business for which
said Convention shall have been assembled
shall be fully completed and finished."
That we should continue here under all cir-
cumstances, against the interests of the mem-
bers and against the interests of the body
politic, was not even contemplated by those
who framed this act and made it a law. If
they bad contemplated it, and desired it, if
they had intended to strip us of all power to
consult our own convenience and the public
interest in this matter, how easy it would
have been to insert the little words " in said
city " thus:
—" shall meet at the city of Annapolis on
the last Wednesday of April, 1864, and shall
continue in session in said city from day to
day."
So far from there being any truth in the
idea that the people expected us to continue
here from day to day, even their representa-
tives who made the law under which we meet
had no such thing in contemplation. To |
suppose that if they had they were so igno-
rant of the use of language as not to know
how to effect their end is to suppose that
legislative body to have been composed of a
very dull set of gentlemen. If it had been
the purpose of that Legislature to bind us
here, I know there were legal gentlemen mem-
bers of that body who would have known ex-
actly how to put the fetters around us. I
say that it was not contemplated. The very-
phraseology of the act makes that fact patent;
tor I repeat that to suppose the Legislature
did not know enough to put in these little
words " in said city," if that was their mean-
ing, is to suppose them a very dull lot of gen-
tlemen indeed. I know they were not dull. I
know there were legal gentlemen among them
of great acumen and ability; and if they had
desired to keep us here it would have been
provided for.
This is a matter then in which there is no
law and no principle in the way. If it can
be shown that we violate any principle or any
law by going away, I will not vote to go.
But if it cannot be shown that we are violat-
ing any principle, or doing anything upon a
wrong principle, the whole matter refers itself
back to the ground of the convenience of
members and the facilities for the transaction
of business. There it rests, on those two
grounds. Is it more convenient to the major-
ity of the members of this body to meet in
Baltimore than here? I think there could be
scarcely two opinions about it—that it would
be more convenient for us to meet in Balti-
more. If that is so, if you settle the question
that it is more convenient for the majority of
the members to meet in Baltimore city than
here, then I say we ought to move, unless
you can make this other point that it will de-
lay the proceedings of this body, and thereby
entail upon the people of the State an undue
amount of taxation to pay expenses. If you
can make that point, then I will vote with
you; fur I will do nothing unnecessarily to
encumber the State with taxation. But it, as
I believe, not only will the convenience of
members be subserved by removal, but the
business of the body will be expedited, then
what stands in the way of the acceptance of
the generous and gracious invitation of our
great commercial emporium? Nothing at all.
I am in great antagonism myself with the
idea that there is a natural antagonism be-
tween Baltimore city and the people of the
State. There is no such thing. Their inter-
eats are identical. Let our great city grow
to its largest limits, and our State will feel
the benefit of it. if more brick and mortar
go up in Baltimore city, more grass and grain
will grow in Howard county. The benefits
are mutual. I would like, it we could do it,
to do some act which should authoritatively
express the opinion that there is no natural
antagonism between any part of this State
and the centre or any other part of the State. |
