construction is put upon this word "duty."
If the amendment of the gentleman from
Kent (Mr. Chambers) only means that it
shall only be the duty of the legislature to
sell when they get par, does not that leave it
discretionary to sell when they do not get
par? Whenever the State's interest in these
public works brings the pair of the debt, then
they shall sell. But does not that still leave
with them the ordinary discretionary power
to sell, if they do not get par? That is the
view I take of it,
Mr. MILLER. I suppose if this amendment
of the gentleman from Kent is adopted, the
words "it shall be the duty," will be con-
sidered just as mandatory as if the constitu-
tion should say, "the legislature shall sell."
" It shall be the duty of the legislature to do
it;" "they shall do it;" they mean the same
thing. I do not think' that in constitutional
law there can be any distinction between
those expressions. And the limitation would
apply in both cases. They shall sell only
such stock as can be converted into a like
amount of the public debt of the State. My
construction of the amendment of the gentle-
man from Kent, is that it is a command to
the legislature of the State to do this thing,
with a prohibition against their selling any
except such stock as can be converted into
a like amount of the public debt of the State.
Now, in regard to the proposition of the
gentleman from Baltimore county (Mr. Ridge-
ly) and my own proposition. The great and
leading feature in each of them, is the prohi-
bition upon the governor, comptroller, and
treasurer of the State to sell until the proceeds
of the sale can be converted into a like amount
of the public debt of the State. I consider
that that would be a prohibition upon those
officers to sell the State's interest in these
works, until the currency of the country
should become so fixed and certain as to
enable the State, as it would enable a private
individual, to realize from its assets enough
to pay its debts. I said the other day that,
as a financial question, the case of a man
dealing with his neighbors, or engaged in
business, is precisely the condition in which
the State finds itself in reference to these mat-
ters. It would certainly be a piece of great
folly for a man to sell out his property at the
present rate of discount, or the present con-
dition of depreciation of the legal-tender cur-
rency of the country, and pay with the pro-
ceeds a debt in a foreign land, for one hun-
dred dollars of his assets now would not
pay forty dollars of his debts abroad. No
individual man in his senses would undertake
to dispose of his property under such circum-
stances.
Now, we may talk as we please in regard
to this depreciation of the currency; it is a
fact which cannot be got rid of. Gentlemen
may talk as much as they please about its
being disloyal to allude to the fact that paper |
money is depreciated; it is nevertheless a
patent fact that cannot be got rid of. I
lately saw it illustrated very well in a news-
paper. One of the farmers in Illinois recently
went into a city with his greenbacks in his
pockets, and wanted to convert them into
family groceries and dry goods. The mer-
chant told him his prices; they did not suit
the farmer's views; they were too high. The
merchant explained to him that gold had
gone up. "Well," said the farmer, "1 don't
care about that: I don't intend to pay yon
gold for your goods; I have got greenbacks
here, the legal tender of the country, the
paper currency of the country." The mer-
chant tried to explain to him that the prices
of goods were worked up to meet the rise of
gold in the market; and that that rise of
gold measured the depreciation of his green-
backs, his legal-tender money. Said the
farmer, " I know that is a darned copperhead
lie." Some one standing by tried to con-
vince him of the fact; and pulling out a gold
dollar, said to him—"Now, to show you
that greenbacks are depreciated, I will take
this gold dollar and go to this merchant, and
buy twice as much coffee with it as you can
buy with a dollar in greenbacks." The far-
mer replied: "That's darned strange; here
I have got a greenback, where the faith of the
country is pledged to redeem, and it is not
worth as much as a gold dollar, which nobody
is responsible for, and which nobody knows
ever will be redeemed." Now, that is just
the sort of reasoning which undertakes to
blink the question of the present depreciation
of the currency, of the legal-tender money of
this country. It is a fact which cannot be
disputed, the whole commercial world re-
cognizes it; every man in this convention,
every business man now acts upon this state
of facts.
If the State, under either of these proposi-
tions, or under the provision reported by the
committee on the legislative department, is
authorized to sell her interest in the works of
internal improvement now, she will sell it
for a sum of money which will not pay the
debts of the State by certainly two to one;
the depreciation is at least that much. And
for these reasons a limitation has been put in
my proposition that this sale shall not take
place until the proceeds can be converted into
an equal amount of the State debt. When
it can be so converted, then it is to be sold.
Now, one word further in regard to the in-
terest of the State in the Washington branch
of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. I adopt
what my friend from Baltimore county (Mr.
Ridgely) has said upon that subject. It is a
productive stock, which, as a financial opera-
tion should not be sold now, because we could
not get as good an investment in its place.
And for the very same reason I have in my
proposition excepted from sale the interest of
the State in the banking institutions. |
