8

the State may derive advantage from its large investment. At all
events, the State would certainly profit by that increased property
of her people, and that increase of population that would be
consequent, on the adoption of any measure that would largely
augment the trade of the canal.

The bill we have the honor to report is further intended to re-
lieve, in some degree, a long suffering and patient class of cred-
itors of the canal company. They have now no security for
their debts but that which the State may voluntarily offer. Eight-
een years ago these creditors, employed by officers appointed by
the State, bestowed their labor to give value to an improvement,
in which the State felt a deep interest, and had invested a large
capital. They have never received payment of either interest or
principal of these claims. If these persons had been employed,
to work in building a State House or Government House, or any
other edifice in which Maryland held a fee simple interest, this
unjust withholding of the wages of the laborer would never
have occurred. And yet it is not easy to discern the difference
in principle, between the case supposed, and that which has actu-
ally occurred. These laborers worked on a property in which
the State was largely interested. They labored at the instance,
and under the direction of officers of the State. It was not their
province to enquire, whether the contracts made by those State
officers would result in lasting advantage to Maryland. It was
not their place, nor was it in their power, to understand how Ma-
ryland was to be recompensed for that expenditure, which all
branches of the government of the State were then sanctioning.
These laborers worked faithfully in the service of the State. They
fulfilled their contract. It remains to be seen whether the repre-
sentatives of the people of Maryland will refuse to allow to those
who, under contract with the officers of the State, helped to con-
struct the canal, an opportunity to get, at this late day, a small
pittance of the wages of their labor. In support of the proposi-
tion to give, to these highly meritorious class of creditors, some se-
curity for their claims, we beg leave to invite attention to some
past legislation on this subject.

By reference to the sixth section of the act of December ses-
sion, 1841, chapter 321, it will be seen, that the Legislature of
Maryland encouraged the people of the State to circulate and re-
ceive the evidences of debt of the canal company for which, in
our bill, we propose to provide. This law of 1841 was enacted
to drive out of circulation irredeemable paper that was then
circulating. The sixth section of the act declares, that neither the
stock orders of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, nor
the paper issued by the Annapolis and Elkridge Railroad Com-
pany, nor the paper issued of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal
Company shall be considered as within the provisions of the act.
And in so declaring, as we have said, the Legislature invited
these companies to issue paper of that description, as evidences of