The question was then taken upon the
clause prohibiting the legislature from pass-
ing local and special laws "regulating the
election and compensation of State and coun-
ty officers," &c., and upon a division—ayes
32, noes 31—it was adopted.
The next question was upon the clause
prohibiting the legislature from passing spe-
cial and local laws, "Providing for the sale
of real estate belonging to minors or other
persons laboring under legal disabilities, by
executors, administrators, guardians or trus-
tees."
The question being then taken, upon a
division—ayes 34, noes 16—the clause was
adopted.
The next question was upon the clause pro-
hibiting the legislature from passing local
and special laws, " giving effect to informal
of invalid deeds or wills."
The question being taken, the clause was
adopted.
The next question was upon the clause pro-
hibiting the legislature from passing special
or local laws, " refunding money paid into
the State treasury, or releasing persons from
their debts or obligations to the State,"
Mr. EDELEN. I would call the attention of
the chair to page 242 of the journal of pro-
ceedings, where I think it will be found that
this question has been already acted upon by
the convention, and therefore this amend-
ment is not in order. I find that, according
to the journal, while section tweenty-six of
this report was under consideration :
" Mr. Stockbridge submitted the following
amendment:
"Section 26, amend by adding to the end
of the section the words—' but shall not by
special act cancel or annul any bond which
for any purpose has been executed to the State
of Maryland.'
'' Decided in the negative.''
Now it seems to me that, the subject-mat-
ter of that amendment being the same as the
house is now called upon to consider, the
subject has already been decided by the con-
vention, and, therefore, the only way to reach
the subject is by a motion to reconsider the
vote upon this twenty-sixth section.
Mr. PUGH. There are other kinds of debts
and obligations besides bonds
Mr. STIRLING. That was an amendment to
a different section.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dent.) The chair is
of the opinion that the point of the gentle-
man from Charles (Mr. Edelen,) is not well
token, and therefore overrules the point.
The question recurred upon agreeing to the
clause of the amendment.
Mr. EDELEN. Is it competent to call for a
division of this particular clause? It recurs
to me that it embraces two separate and inde-
pendent propositions. The one is an inter-
diction upon the power of the legislature to
refund to any party money after it has once |
gone into the treasury. The latter branch of
the proposition is intended to he an interdic-
tion upon the legislature to pass a special law
releasing a party, who is indebted to the
State but has not paid the money into the
treasury of the State, I therefore call for a
division of the proposition.
The CHAIRMAN, The chair is of opinion
that the question is divisible. The question
therefore will be first .taken upon the first
clause of the proposition.
The question was upon adopting the first
clause—being a prohibition upon the passage
of special or local laws, "refunding money
paid into the State treasury."
Mr. ABBOTT. Does this prevent the legis-
lature from passing some general law for this
purpose ?
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. The object of this pro-
vision is this: There are very frequent
claims made upon the State treasury for
moneys alleged to have been improperly paid
into the treasury for taxes, &c. It has hap-
pened more than once that these claims have
been fully and carefully investigated by the
financial officers of the State, the State trea-
surer and comptroller, who have reported the
claims as improper. Yet these claims so re-
ported upon have been, somehow or other,
smuggled through the legislature, and the
State has thereby been actually swindled out
of large sums of money. The object of this
provision, was to prevent the passage of any
such special act, in order that the State legis-
lature might pass a general law, conferring
power in certain cases, and upon proper
proof upon the financial officers of the State,
who have all this information in their hands,
to investigate all these claims, and decide
upon them judicially, with full knowledge of
all the facts, with access to all the books and
documents, and opportunity to bestow a de-
gree of deliberation upon the subject which
the legislature cannot do; to leave the matter
entirely in their hands. It was no part of
the idea which prompted the amendment,
that moneys erroneously paid should not be
returned, or errors made should not be cor-
rected. The simple object was to provide
that the legislature should not do it, but that
it should be left in the hands of the proper
financial officers of the State, under such
rules and regulations as the legislature might
provide by general law.
Mr. ABBOTT. That was the construction I
had placed upon it.
Mr. STIRLING. One of the sections of the
Constitution says that no money shall be
drawn out of the treasury except by appro-
priation made by law. The power, there-
fore, to draw money out of the treasury
must rest with the legislature. it is not
wise and safe to trust the disbursing officer
of the treasury to put his hand in the trea-
sury and take money out of it. No State
trusts such a power to its executive officers. |
