lating any provision of the constitution.
They have only to exercise their discretion to
sell.
It is too much power to vest in anybody.
You cannot buy a whole legislature; or if
you can, it is one of the things you cannot
prevent. If you can corrupt the whole
foundation of government there is, there is
no use in making any provision. But to
make it depend upon two individuals, be-
cause it names three, and any two can de-
cide—is conferring a power I am not willing
to trust in the hands of any two men that
live between Maine and California.
Mr. EARLE. I do not like to interrupt the
gentleman, I never have interrupted any
gentleman but. once—but I should like to ask
a question. If the legislature should decide
to sell these works, who would be the agents
to make the sale? They must have agents,
and will they not be as liable to be corrupted
as those we appoint here?
Mr. STIRLING. I will answer that. There
is very little discretion in merely putting up
a thing and proposing to take bids for it. It
is a mere matter of administration of details.
But here is a question of policy lo be decided,
whether we shall or shall not sell. These
men have the power of saying that it shall
not be sold at all; or that it shall be sold.
People who want the property of the State,
can afford to pay a million of dollars for the
purpose of obtaining a sale, knowing that if
it is put up their chances for the purchase of
it are certain. But there is not the same
temptation or power in the exercise of the
discretion of taking bids or receiving propo-
sitions. There is a publicity about .that.
Who can go into the breast of an individual
and find out why he decided to do a thing or
not to do it? It is a matter nobody can find
out.
It is legislative discretion,—the power to
sell public property. The details of selling
it are executive matters. The question wheth-
er you shall sell or not, is a matter of legisla-
tive power. It is a mutter which has no
business in the executive department of the
government. It is a violation of the provision
in the bill of rights, which says that the ex-
ecutive and legislative functions of the gov-
ernment shall be separate. This is a question
of legislative policy, which the convention
confides to these executive officers. The con-
vention expresses no opinion upon it atall.
It does not say the governor shall sell, That
might lie defensible, because that decides the
thing by the sovereign legislative power of
this body, and leave the governor to admin-
ister the details. But it confides the whole
question of legislative policy, the broad poli-
cy of the sale of public property, to the hands
of two executive officers
Mr. RIDGELY. Would the gentleman, have
voted for the proposition as reported by the
legislative committee ? |
Mr. STIRLING. Yes, sir; because they au-
thorized the legislature to do it. That puts
the power where it belongs, in the hands of
the representatives of the people.
Mr. RIDGELY. The proposition now is to
drop the whole subject. I understand, from
the argument of the gentleman, that he re-
commends to drop the whole subject. What
would be the effect of dropping the whole
subject? The end will be attained, that the
legislature will have the power. The legis-
lature then, free from all restriction, may put
this property up at sale, and the lobbies will
be filled with parties desiring to purchase
it, unless you adoit the suggestion of the
gentleman from Cecil (Mr. Pugh,) and im-
pose a prohibitory clause in the constitu-
tion against their Belling it at all. The object
is attained by indirection which this house
has refused to adopt by direction. By a large
vote you have re-fused to confide the power to
the legislature to sell this property. You are
asked now by the friends' of this proposition
to do nothing, and therefore to confer a power
upon the legislature by indirection which you
have positively refused to grant.
Mr. NEGLEY demanded the yeas and nays
upon the amendment, and they were ordered.
The question being taken, the result was—
yeas 30, nays 20—as follows :
Yeas—Messrs. Abbott, Annan, Audoun,
Brooks, Carter, Daniel, Earle, Ecker, Farrow,
Hoffman, Hopkins, Hopper, King, McComas,
Miller, Mullikin, Murray, Negley, Nyman,
Parker, Ridgely, Russell, Smith, of Carroll,
Stockbridge, Swope, Sykes, Todd, Valliant,
Wickard, Wooden—30.
Nays—Messrs. Belt, Chambers, Cushing,
Dail, Davis, of Washington, Dent, Duvall,
Edelen, Greene, Hebb. Hollyday, Lee, Mitch-.
ell, Morgan, Parran, Pugh, Smith, of Dor-
chester, Sneary, Stirling, Wilmer—20.
As their name? were called,
Mr. PUGH said: As the question was not
divided, I am obliged to vote " no."
Mr. CUSHING said: While I am in favor of
the sale of the public works. I think the
proposition that is before us, puts the sale of
the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal within the
province of three officers of the government,
to be disposed of at any price they may think
proper; while under the resolution that was
offered by the gentleman from Kent, I think
the legislature controlled, and that the gov-
ernor and the treasurer would have had the
power to have forced any corporation in our
State that desired the control of the Chesa-
peake and Ohio Canal, to pay to the State
the full amount of its investment in that en-
terprise. I think so far as regards the other
unproductive public works of our State, they
cannot be sold for any amount whatever at
public sale. I think the question turns simply
upon the sale of the Chesapeake and Ohio
Canal, in the resolution we are now voting
upon. While I do not intend to impute
|
