932 JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS [Apl. 3,

and the residue of the subscription shall be paid whenever
assessed or called for by the Board of Directors," the Comp-
troller of the Treasury could not legally issue his warrant
until such assessment had been made by the Board of Direc
tors of the Company. We find no evidence showing, or
tending to show that this assessment was ever made by the
Board of Directors of the Southern Maryland Railroad Com-
pany, or proof thereof filed with the Comptroller or Treas-
urer of the State. Indeed, as the Act of 1868, chapter 150,
Section G, requires the Directors of said Company to be
stockholders thereof, and it appears from the testimony of
Samuel S. Smoot, that he is the only stockholder of said
company, other than the State of Maryland, we do not see
how there could be any Board of Directors of said Company.
Be that as it may, no proof of any such assessment could be
found after diligent search

On the 19th of December, 1873, the Southern Maryland
Railroad Company borrowed a certain sum of money from
Robert T. Baldwin, of Baltimore city, and assigned to him
the claim of the company for the remainder of the State's
subscription of $163,000, said remainder being; $81,500,
although it had not yet obtained any recommendation from
the County Commissioners.

On the 24th day of December, 1874, the County Commis-
sioners of St. Mary's county, at Leonardtown, in said
county, passed a resolution recommending the State Treas-
urer to pay $81,500, to the Southern Maryland Railroad
Company, "in conformity to the provisions of said Act."
On the same day at Annapolis, before this resolution could
by any possibility have reached there, without any as-
sessment by the Board of Directors of the Company,
and this time, without even an affidavit from Smoot,
the Comptroller issued his warrant to said Baldwin,
assignee, for the sum of $30,500, and on the 20th day
of January following, another warrant to Alexander Brown &
Sons, assignees of said Baldwin, for the sum of $51,000.
There is no evidence whatever that the provisions of the Acts
of 1868 (chapters 454 and 150) had been complied with before
or since the issuing of these warrants.

The undersigned would further repoit, that from the ad-
missions of Samuel S. Smoot and Hamilton G. Fant, made
in their testimony tauen before the Committee, it appears
that the statement in their joint affidavit of February 6th,
1873, to the effect that $500,000 in money was paid to the
Treasurer of the Southern Maryland Railroad Company by
other subscribers in the State of Maryland, is untrue. It ap-
pears from their testimony that they claim that two per cen-