your own use. In that case, carrying out the
analogy, be should bepaid for it by yon; but
he should not be paid for it by you, when
you, sitting as a judge, have simply decided
that mine was the paramount right. Can a
thing be plainer than that? That is just the
difference between these two cases. We in-
terfere with no right when we adjudge that
the right of another claimant is paramount to
that of the claimant in possession.
Bat this is not entirely relevant to the point
betore us, which is the maintenance of super-
annuated slaves, or those infirm and unable
to take care of themselves. Is there not suf-
ficient legislation upon that subject" is there
not sufficient power in the hands of the legis-
lature to control that? We have always bad
in the State of Maryland persons who were
paupers, unable to take care of themselves.
"The poor ye have with you always." We
have provided for them. The powers of the
legislature have been found ample. They are
ample still. The amount or extent of the dif-
ficulty which will arise from the enactment
now before us it is impossible to determine
It may be great; it may be small. This con-
vention, sitting here at this time, with the
future all unexplored ana untried, without the
power of absolute foreknowledge or omni-
science, cannot assume to measure the extent
of the evil that may arise. I think it is
wisest, therefore, to leave the hands of the
legislature untied in this matter. They have
in point of fact the authority to provide by
general law for the maintenance of paupers,
if paupers are found in the State; and to de-
cide how they shall be disposed of. If there
be children, if there be vagrants unable to
take care of themselves, the laws as they
exist are sufficient to control the subject
amply; and if not, the legislature has power
to revise them to abridge any part of them,
to add to them, to modify them. The power
of the legislature over this subject, without
the adoption of any section like that before
the convention, is full and ample. Why,
theft, this effort to pass it? I see no utility
in it. it cannot do any good, and may
hamper the legislature. I shall therefore vote
against the section offered.
Mr. PUGH called the previous question.
Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's, demanded
the yeas and nays upon sustaining the pre-
vious question, and they were ordered.
The question being taken, the result was—
—yeas 41, nays 26—as follows :
Yeas—Messrs. Goldsborough, President;
Abbott, Annan, Audoun, Barron, Carter,
Cunningham, Cushing, Daniel, Davis, of
Washington, Earle, Ecker, Farrow, Gallo-
way, Hatch, Hebb, Hoffman, Hopkins, Hop-
per, Kennard, King, Markey, McComas, Mul-
likin, Murray, Negley, Nyman, Parker, Pugh,
Purnell, Ridgely, Russell, Sands, Schley,
Sneary, Stirling, Swope, Sykes, Thomas,
Todd, Wooden—41. |
Nays—Messrs. Berry, of Prince George's,
Blackiston, Bond, Brown, Chambers, Craw-
ford, Dail, Davis, of Charles, Dent, Duvall,
Edelen, Hollyday, Horsey, Jones, of Cecil,
Jones, of Somerset, Lee, Marbury, Mitchell,
Miller, Morgan, Parran, Peter, Smith, of
Dorchester, Stockbridge, Valliant, Wilmer
—26.
As their names were called,
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE said: Having been ac-
corded the privilege of addressing the con-
vention, I cannot of course deny to others the
privilege accorded to me; and I shall there-
forevote "no."
Mr. VALLIANT said: I am very desirous of
voting for the amendment as proposed by the
gentleman from Anne Arundel (Mr. Miller.)
I desire, however, before voting for it, to have
an opportunity of submitting an amendment
to strike out the word "shall," and insert
"may." I do not desire to bind the legisla-
ture, I therefore vote "no."
The call for the previous question was sus-
tained.
The question being stated upon the adop-
tion of the amendment submitted by Mr. MIL-
LER:
Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's, demanded
the yeas and nays, and they were ordered.
The question being taken, the result was—
yeas 24, nays 43—as follows :
Yeas—Messrs. Berry, of Prince George's,
Blackiston, Bond, Brown, Chambers, Craw-
ford, Dail, Davis, of Charles, Dent, Duvall,
Edelen, Hollyday, Horsey, Jones, of Somerset,
Lee, Marbury, Mitchell, Miller, Morgan, Par-
ran, Peter, Smith, of Dorchester, Valliant,
Wilmer—24.
Nays—Messrs. Goldsborough, President;
Abbott, Annan, Audoun, Barron, Carter,
Cunningham, Cushing, Daniel, Davis, of
Washington, Earle, Ecker, Farrow, Gallo-
way, Hatch, Hebb, Hoffman, Hopkins, Hop-
per, Jones, of Cecil, Kennard, King, Markey,
McComas", Mullikin, Murray, Negley, Nyman,
Parker, Pugh, Purnell, Ridgely, Russell,
Sands, Schley, Sneary, Stirling, Stockbridge,
Swope, Sykes, Thomas, Todd, Wooden—43.
As their names were called,
Mr. THOMAS said: I vote " no " upon this
proposition for two reasons; first, because
I conceive that the legislature has already
the power to provide for what is intended to
be provided for by this section; secondly, be-
cause I believe the legislature has already
exercised that power, and there is sufficient
legislation to meet all the provisions of this
section.
Mr. VALLIANT. I am sorry I have so fre-
quently to explain my vote. I shall vote dif-
ferently from the majority in this case, for I
shall vote for the section as embracing my
views precisely. The words "if necessary"
which I overlooked, leave this, us I desired
to leave it, to the discretion of the legislature,
The statement of the gentleman from Balti- |
