|
The Constitutional Convention of 1864 53
of the state. The major differences from the existing constitutional duties were (1) the
directors appointed by the board, rather than the board itself, were to represent the
state's interest at stockholders' meetings; (2) the board was required to hold regular
meetings in Annapolis four times a year—on the first Mondays of January, April,
July, and October; and (3) the board was empowered at its meetings to "hear and
determine such matters as affect the public works of the State and the Legislature
may confer upon them the power to decide."6
Having received this recommendation, the convention for nine weeks turned its
attention to more important matters. The Board of Public Works came back for dis-
cussion on 2 August, at which time there was a good bit of "nit-picking" but not much
substantive debate. It was agreed, for example, that a majority of the board should
be competent to act, but considerable debate took place before the exact language
expressing that consensus could be agreed upon. It was also resolved that the required
quarterly meetings be on Wednesdays rather than Mondays in order that the comp-
troller and treasurer not have to travel on weekends.7
One substantive change, suggested by Archibald Stirling of Baltimore City, was
that the board be expanded to five members by adding the lieutenant governor and
the commissioner of the land office. Stirling expressed the view that a five-member
board would be better than three in that "by having officers exercising different func-
tions and elected at different times, you distribute the matter better throughout the
State, and make this board more a representative of all the interests of the people."8
Stirling's amendment was not adopted, but the debate on it gives some insight into
why the governor, the comptroller, and the treasurer were selected.
Peter Negley of Washington County, in opposition to Stirling's proposal, stated:
There is a solid and substantial reason why the governor, comptroller, and treasurer should
constitute this board. The governor is the chief officer of the State, and therefore a higher
responsibility attaches to the proper discharge of his duties than to those of any other officer.
In the next place the comptroller and treasurer are the sworn and bonded financial officers
of the State. They understand all the finances of the State, and therefore they are the
proper officers to take this matter into consideration. Put any other man on that board,
and he will be controlled, as the governor will be to a great extent, by knowledge obtained
from the comptroller and treasurer. If they want to understand anything about the finances
or the public works of the State, where do those officers go? where does the legislature go?
to whom do the people look but to the report presented to them by the comptroller and the
treasurer? They are the proper officers; within their cognizance come all the financial
operations of the government of the State. They have before them continually the operation
of our public works; they know all about them, just as the merchant knows the goods upon
his shelves, or the banker knows the accounts in his books. They are the only parties in
the State that are perfectly cognizant of these matters; therefore there is peculiar wisdom
in constituting them to the board. I do not care if you multiplied the number of the board
a thousand times, they must depend upon these two sworn and bonded officers for the
information they act upon.
James T. Briscoe of Calvert County agreed that the reason the committee selected
these three officials "was the fact that the duties of the governor, comptroller and
treasurer relate particularly to the financial affairs of the State, and they are therefore
better prepared to consider these matters."9
Stirling responded that he laid no particular stress upon the matter but felt that
it would be demeaning for the governor to attend stockholders' meetings. To this
objection William Daniel of Baltimore City replied that the governor would not attend
stockholders' meetings; the directors appointed by the board would perform that func-
6. Ibid., p. 163.
7. Ibid., 2:1083-89.
8. Ibid., p. 1087. The convention had not yet decided whether to have a lieutenant governor, but the proposal
was under active consideration and was ultimately provided for in the Constitution. The commissioner of
the land office was an elected official.
9. Ibid., p. 1088.
|
 |
