|
The Constitutional Convention of 1850-1851 27
Company.6 The committee ultimately presented a report to the convention proposing
a board of public works consisting of three commissioners—one from the Eastern Shore
and two from the Western Shore—elected on a statewide basis. A specific term was
contemplated, but the length of it was left blank; the terms were, however, to be
staggered. The duties of the board were described in proposed article 3: "The said
commissioners shall exercise a diligent and faithful supervision on all public works
in which the State may be interested as stockholder or creditor; shall represent the
State in all meetings of Stockholders, and perform such other duties as may be pre-
scribed by law."7
Before any discussion of the committee report, a substitute was offered by Francis
Thomas of Frederick County, which provided for the election of four commissioners,
each elected from and by the voters of a specific geographic region.8 The duties of
these commissioners were essentially the same as those prescribed in article 3 of the
committee report for the proposed board of public works. In the event the commis-
sioners were unable by reason of a tie to reach a decision or agreement, the state
treasurer would cast the deciding vote.
The convention virtually disregarded the committee report after the committee
chairman, Daniel Jenifer of Charles County, explained that (1) a number of proposals
had been submitted to the committee; (2) "the report came before the Convention,
more to discharge a duty which the Committee felt devolved on them by the reference
of several plans to their consideration, than from any predilection of their own"; and
(3) no member of the committee was pledged to support, in particular, the proposal
embodied in the committee report.9 Thereafter the delegates discussed the issues
within context of the Thomas substitute.
The seminal issue was, of course, whether to create a new, separate, and popularly
elected board of public works or group of commissioners as an integral part of the state
government to supplant the existing system of state agents appointed by the legis-
lature.10 The convention committee squarely faced this basic issue and opted for a new
elected board. When questioned about the decision, Jenifer called attention to the
recommendations from governors Thomas G. Pratt and Philip F. Thomas to the 1846
and 1849 sessions of the legislature.11
The Thomas proposal, involving four regionally elected commissioners, faced the
issue somewhat less squarely. Although calling for a "board of commissioners," Thomas
made clear his opposition to the concept of a board of public works and drew what he
considered a significant distinction between Maryland and other states having such
boards. Those states, he noted, actually owned internal improvement projects. They
were public enterprises, and the principal function of the board of public works was
to exercise the state's clear prerogative of direct managerial control—to take, in effect,
the place of officers and boards of directors. Maryland's situation was different. The
state did not own the projects but was merely a stockholder and/or creditor of the
6. Reform Convention Debates, 1:114. It is significant that the convention paired these two topics—state
debt and public works. As noted by Smith and Harry (note 4 above), the convention was fractious and
difficult to organize. That included the selection of committees. Yet most of the proposals, in one manner
or another, placed both of these issues in the same committee. See Proceedings of the Maryland State Con-
vention to Frame a New Constitution (Annapolis, 1850), pp. 52, 60, 61 (hereafter Maryland State Convention
Proceedings).
7. Maryland State Convention Proceedings, p. 248.
8. Reform Convention Debates, 2:220. Thomas had been governor from 1842 to 1846. He had also been
president of the C & O Canal Company and, at the same time, a member of the U.S. Congress. He is not
to be confused with Philip F. Thomas, who served as governor from 1848 to 1851.
9. Ibid., p. 390.
10. In 1832, as previously noted, the legislature directed the governor and Council to appoint three agents
to represent the state's interest in the various companies in which it had an interest at all stockholders'
meetings. When the debacle hit in 1840-42, that arrangement was continued, but the legislature made the
appointments itself, removing that power from the governor. See chapter 2; Acts of 1832, ch. 318; 1840, ch.
155; 1841, ch. 290.
11. Reform Convention Debates, 2:390. See also chapter 2.
|
 |
