having the alternative provision retained.
I will simply state that the reason gives to
me was, in brief, that the Chesapeake and
Ohio Canal might be leased to the preferred
creditors, who are citizens of Montgomery,
Frederick, Washington, and Allegany coun-
ties, and who as citizens have a double in-
terest, both in the usefulness of that particu-
lar work, and in its being; remunerative to
the State. That ie a brief outline of the
general argument. I hope that the gentle-
man will not come to the conclusion that it
must be absolutely disposed of or else re-
tained. I think it is inadvisable, for many
good and sufficient reasons to retain it. I do
not insist upon this; and I do not wish the
Convention to understand that I am in favor
as an individual of the alternative proposi-
tion. I prefer to dispose of the interest out-
right. I think it well, though, that it should
be referred to the judgment of the General
Assembly, because when they meet the same
reasons will be urged upon them; and if they
find at that lime that they are insufficient,
they will pass a law to sell absolutely.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I do not think the reasons
last stated by any means necessarily lead
to the conclusion. We all know—and in
this respect I do not mean to criminate one
party more than another—that some of those
works—at least it is so said, and it is univer-
sally believed—have been made subjects of
political interest and political agency in the
State. The misfortune is that those who
have the political power at the moment, have
an interest in keeping these works in their
hands. They control the officers who con
trol the works; and those officers will necessarily
be of their appointment. We have no
such political tendencies to gratify. We do
not know who is to be the appointing officer.
I ask the members of this body the serious
question, as citizens of this State, as persons
desiring to see the parity of our elections
preserved, and everything else conducive to
the administration of republican government
among us, is it. fair to place in the hands of
the appointee of the Legislature the control
of such works, the interest of such works as
the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, for in-
stance? Is it well to give the Legislature
the appointment of an officer, of course agree-
ing with them in political sentiment, with
power to control that whole institution, for
whatever consideration they may deem it
proper to ask? Is it not establishing a source
of crimination and recrimination, a source of
abuse, without the profit of a dollar to the
State? There are many institutions of this
sort; I do not know how many, but I know
the general fact that there are others; and I
Bay, to avoid expense, in the name of common
sense, common justice, and common patriot-
ism, let us get rid of them. I was happy to
bear the gentleman from Frederick (Mr.
Schley) say that from his acquaintance with |
the matters, his private opinion is so and so.
His opinion as a man will, of course, secure
his vote in accordance with that opinion.
As to the arrangement to which he alludes,
is it proper to give any persona advantages,
such that any sharper who chooses to take
an unfair advantage may supersede them?
Is it better to lease to these creditors, scat-
tered all over the world? I do think we
would better at once wipe our bands of the
concern. We all know that the tendencies
are to seek private advantage; and bow can
we adopt this section when everybody is try-
ing to make a grab at the treasury, and to
plunge his hand into the public works? I
hope the amendment will prevail.
Mr. SCHLEY. I wish the gentleman to un-
derstand that I am in favor of his amend-
ment. I am decidedly in favor of getting rid
of the public works, putting them out of the
hands of the State at the earliest practical and
expedient moment I merely stated the rea-
sons why the committee made the report as it
stands, and that there might be good reasons
for referring it to the discretion of the Legis-
lature. The member of the committee who
was particularly interested in this alternative
provision, is absent to-day. If he were here
I suppose he would state in full what I have
merely stated in brief; that there are reasons
applicable to the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal
that do not apply to the other public works
of the State. The words " lease or other-
wise dispose of," were incorporated in the
section solely with reference to that public
work.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Does the gentleman from
Frederick think it advisable to defer action?
Mr. SCHLEY. I have not asked it. I am
not requested to defer it at all.
Mr. SANDS. I should like to see the con-
sideration of the subject postponed, until we
can get information from those interested.
Mr. SCHLEY. It is not necessary.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. WICKARD moved to insert after " cred-
itor " in line 4, the words: " As also all the
stocks the State may hold in the banking in-
stitutions of this State.
Mr. ABBOTT. What did the committee in-
tend to cover by that section? Is not that
already understood? I should like to know
also whether it includes the State tobacco
warehouses? It appears to me to be in-
definite as it is now; and it will perhaps
produce trouble in the Legislature, unless it
specific" more exactly what it is intended to
embrace.
Mr. STIRLING . It cannot cover bank stock,
for it expressly says, "works of internal
improvement.' ' That is definite and specific.
It means railroads and canals, and it cannot
mean anything else. Then it proceeds—" in
which the State is either stockholder or cred-
itor." That cannot cover the State tobacco
warehouse, which, like the State House, is. |
