dered it, as to the people of Maryland generally, if not, in-
deed, also, to that great public who were believed to be
looking to the results of the labors of this Committee from
far beyond the limits of our State. And, as is not unusual
in such cases, the sense of disappointment might vent itself

in reproaches more or less harsh towards those who were or
should appear to be its authors, either by omission or com-

mission, the undersigned could not but feel the desire to pro-
tect both themselves and their honorable colleagues from all
such reproaches.

This duty of early and prompt action appeared to the un-
dersigned to be still more imperative, when they remembered
that it had been one, at least, of the avowed objects in raising
the Committee, to relieve the majority of the members of the

House from what they seemed to consider and treated as as-

persions cast upon or insinuated against their fair fame, a
thing too precious always to be lightly assailed, but most
especially so to gentlemen holding the high and responsible
position of Representatives of a free people in their legisla-
tive halls. This minority, therefore, in their just anxiety to
proceed, and determine on their part to avoid all unnecessary
delay, took occasion as early as the 19th of January to ad-

dress a note to the Honorable Chairman, (the Committee not
yet having been organized or convened,) furnishing that
honorable gentleman with a list of the names of persons who,
it was believed, could give testimony material to the investi-
gations, and whom it was desired by that note should be

summoned for examination.

No notice was taken of that note then, nor since, except
the acknowledgment of its receipt before the Committee at
their first meeting, which was not called until the 31st day
of January, and a refusal on the part of the majority at that
meeting to issue the summonses as asked for. One of this
minority had, meantime, finding there was so much delay in
the convocation of the Committee, asked of the House, by an
order to that effect, offered on the 31st day of January, au-
thority to the Clerk of the House, at the request of any two
members of the Committee, to summon witnesses to appear
before the Committee, to give testimony, which order was
opposed and rejected by the House, the members composing
the majority of the. Committee, voting against it. Hence, it
appears, if there was delay in the proceedings and a failure
to summon witnesses before the Committee, this minority
were faultless, at least in those particulars.

At this first meeting of the Committee, held on the 31st
of January, as before stated, the Chairman laid before the

6