The 35th section was read as follows :
" Section 35. The General Assembly shall
pass laws necessary to protect the property
of the wife from the debts of the husband
during her life, and for securing the same to
her issue after her death.
Mr. CHAMBERS. It was perhaps very proper
to have this provision in the old Constitution,
but I suggest that laws are already passed
covering this matter, and that there is now
no necessity for its continuance. I move to
strike out this section.
The motion was rejected
The 36th section was read as follows :
" Section 36. Laws shall be passed by the
General Assembly lo protect from execution,
a reasonable amount of property of a debtor
not exceeding in value the sum of five hun-
dred dollars."
Mr. Kiss moved to strike out " shall" in
line one, and to insert " may."
The amendment was rejected.
Sections 37 and 38 were read, and no
amendments were offered,
The 39th section was read as follows :
"Section 39. The General Assembly shall
pass laws to sell, lease or otherwise dispose of
the State's interest in the works of internal
improvement, in which the State is either
stockholder or creditor; and to appropriate
the proceeds arising therefrom towards the
payment of the public debt of the State; and
after the public debt shall have been fully
paid off, or the sinking fund shall be equal
to its liquidation, to create out of said pro-
ceeds a permanent fund for the support of
public education."
Mr. CHAMBERS. It strikes me that if this
policy is to be adopted it would better be
carried out thoroughly. The section pro-
vides that the Legislature shall pass laws
either to sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of
the State's interest in the works of internal
improvement. I think it is our business
either to keep these works, or to dispose of
them, not to make a temporary arrangement
which will be an eternal source of conflict,
collusion and intrigue. I cannot perceive
any possible advantage to be derived from
leasing or disposing of this property in any
ether way than by getting rid of it at once
I do not mean to enter into an argument upon
the subject. I rise to move to erase the words
" lease or otherwise dispose of," so as to make
it imperative upon the Legislature to sell.
have no objection to giving time, that they
may not be compelled to sell for an inade
quate consideration; but I wish to avoid a
temporary disposition of the property by
which some favored individual perhaps may
obtain the interest in the property. I wish
the Legislature to sell out ana out, that the
State may get rid of this property.
Mr. SCHLEY. I am myself in favor of the
views expressed by the gentleman from Kent
(Mr. Chambers.) I want a decided policy, |
so far as it is practicable. It seems to me
that is proper in this case. But in deference
to the conflict of opinion in portions of the
State that are deeply interested in these pub-
lic works, I concurred in the property of
the language reported by the committee and
the provision made by the committee. I do
not intend to enter into an explanation of the
reasons that are adduced by those who are in
favor of leasing or otherwise disposing of the
interest in the canal and railroad companies,
in regard to the general welfare of the region
of country hem-fitted by them. But those
reasons, offered by the advocates of this pol-
icy, seemed lo me to have some force. I
therefore concurred in the report of the com-
mittee as it stands, I mention this that the
Convention may know the reasons that in-
fluenced the committee in making the report
to embrace these alterations. For my own
part I should decidedly prefer that the State
should divest itself of all interest in these
public works and leave them to individual
enterprise.
Mr. SANDS. I must confess that before
voting on this subject, I should like to have
the information in the possession of the
chairman of the committee, If there are good
reasons urged by anybody in favor of farm-
ing out the State's interest in the public
works, I should like to hear them; but unless
I do hear them I must vote in support of the
proposition of my friend from Kent. We all
know what becomes of farmed property, how
hard it is worked, how its capacities are
taxed, how very seldom it goes back into the
hands of the owner as it went into the hands
of the lessee. I believe this rule will work
more strongly in relation to the public works
of the State, where no individual is particu-
larly interested in keeping the lessee up to
the terms of his lease, than in the private case
where the owner of the property would be
likely, if he could, to see to his interests.
Upon this general principle I am opposed
to having the State farm out its interest in
those public works. But if there he any
good reason why this should he done I am
anxious to hear it. If the chairman of the
committee will give members of the Conven-
tion the information which lie possesses in
regard to this matter, so that I can act in-
telligently, I am willing, if the reasons ap-
pear sufficient, to join with the committee. If
not, I must vote either for the State's reten-
tion of its interest in the public works, or
their absolute sale. I should be glad to hear
from my friend from Frederick (Mr. Schley)
the reasons urged upon him as one of the
committee having this matter in charge, to
favor this policy of leasing the State's in-
terest in the public works.
Mr. SCHLEY. I would gladly answer the
gentlemen's inquiry, if I felt myself compe-
tent to state the reasons as satisfactorily as
those who are more interested than myself in |
