mating its par value. On the the contrary, it is not unreasonable
to suppose, that the sum which any party would be willing to
give for the stock, would be less, than one eighth of the amount
of the debts of the Canal Company. And as the assignee, or
lessee, of the State, would have as many votes in meetings of
Stockholders as the State now has. And the creditors of the
Canal Company would have no vote at all. We would have
an anamolous and monstrous condition of affairs. The lessee
or assignee of the State, having paid a small sum of money, would
control without check, a company to whose necessities numerous
creditors had contributed in labor and money, millions of dollars.
Whatever may be the determination of Maryland on the subject,
we hope that no State policy, or State necessity, will ever impel
the Legislature to do an act inevitably, leading as such, an as-
signment or lease would to gross injustice.

Passing from the consideration of measures that we hope the
House will not resort to, we beg leave to advert briefly to the one
we have the honor to submit.

In the first section of the bill we think will be found, ample
provision for the pecuniary difficulties, that at present environ the
canal company.

In that we propose that the State shall authorize the canal
company to borrow, not more than five hundred thousand dollars,
on the bonds of the company, payable thirty-five years after date.
And we are assured that such bonds, if secured, as it is pro-
posed, by a first mortgage on the canal, can be sold at their par
value. To an issue of such bonds by the company, the assent
of Maryland, and of those who are known as holders of pre-
ferred bonds, under the act of December session, 1844, chapter
281, must be given. We have the assurance of the committee,
appointed by those bondholders, that their assent will not be with-
held. It remains tor the Legislature to signify their determina-
tion on, the part of the State. We do not propose to change
the order in which the liens of the State and of the preferred
bond holders now stand in their mortgages from the canal com-
pany. The bond holders have now a lien on the revenues of
that company, which entitles them to have their debts paid before
the debt of the State can be enforced. This priority the bill
proposes to continue in the bond holders, and offers to the bond
holders, in lieu of their mortgage on the canal company, a lien on
the property of the company, as compensation for their consent
to have bonds, to the amount of five hundred thousand dollars,
secured by a mortgage that shall have priority over all other
mortgages binding this property. We do not see good reason
for rejecting this measure on the part of the State. Under ex-
isting circumstances the State receives nothing, and it does
not appear probable that the State can receive anything as a cred-
itor or stockholder of the canal company. If by the means pro-
posed the canal can be put in a condition to invite a large trade,