hundred dollars shall betaken from the creditors.
The widow, if there be one, may, in her own
right be possessed of a thousand acres of land,
with valuable negroes, &c., and yet under the
proposition before us, the creditors must be
robbed for her benefit, of the three hundred dol-
lars to be secured to her, &c. Can an apology be
offered, for thus plundering creditors to increase
the means of a wife and children already in afflu-
ence? Yet, this may be the result of the mea-
sure now proposed for our adoption. And it does
not necessarily follow that the family of a de-
ceased or insolvent, are a wife or children, it
may be that his family are his father or mother,
brothers or sisters, uncles or aunts, &c., all of
whom have fortunes of their own; yet for them
the three hundred dollars must be wrested from
the impoverished needy creditors.
If this be a necessary article of our organic
law, may Heaven forefend us against Constitu-
tions and Conventions. Surely we could not de-
sire to perpetuate such flagrant injustice as this,
by putting it out of the power of the legislature
to alter or control it.
But, suppose there are no wife or children, is
it intended that this proposition shall embrace
uncles, aunts, or any other persons who may
happen to reside with him, though they may be
all rich and independent Are the creditors thus
to be deprived of their hard earnings, to be given
to those who are richer than they are?
He thought the Convention ought not for a
moment to listen to such an amendment. The
power to regulate these things is now in the leg-
islature. He was disposed to leave it there, and
let the legislature act as circumstances may call
for; it never would of itself adopt such a propo-
sition as this.
If we put this provision in the Constitution we
shall have tied up the hands of the legislature, so
that they will have no power to modify or change
the law, no matter how urgent may be the ne-
cessity, or universal the popular sentiment in fa-
vor of the change.
He then remarked on the difficulty which
would attend the practical operation of such a
provision. The three hundred dollars is to be
equally divided, between the wife and children.
If the latter be infants, as most probably would
be the case, not a particle of their portions could
be used for their support or education, until all
the expense and trouble must be incurred, of hav-
ing a guardian appointed by the orphans court to
each infant; and the expenses would consume the
whole subject-matter—"the play not be worth
the candle."
The deceased or intestate, might leave adozen
children, most of whom might be living at the
time of the death or insolvency with their rela-
tions; yet though equally destitute, they would get
no part of the plunder.
He thought if any thing was to be done on the
subject, it would certainly be the wisest plan to
leave the legislature to act untrammeled in the
matter, and he had no fear of its perpetrating
such an enormity as that now proposed for our
adoption. The evils resulting from the measure |
before us, can but be indistinctly foreseen. It
would lead to frauds innumerable; annihilate the
credit of the poor man, and leave i him without
the means of rescuing his family from destitu-
tion and want,
Upon these grounds, and upon every principle
of justice and common honesty, he was opposed
to the amendment now before the Convention,
Mr. JENIFER moved that the whole subject-
matter be laid upon the table.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city, asked the yeas
and nays,
Which were ordered.
Mr. BUCHANAN called for the reading of the
proposition and amendment;
Which were read.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city, to meet objec-
tions made against the proposition, as originally
offered by him, modified his preposition to read
as follows:
"In all cases where the head of a family shall
die or become insolvent, owning a dwelling
house or homestead furniture, or other property,
or where an execution is levied upon the proper-
ty of any debtor, the said house, homestead fur-
niture or other property, shall be exempt from
administration or liability to, or seizure by cred-
itors; provided, said property, real or personal,
does not exceed the sum of in
value, but the same shall thereupon belong in
equal parts to the wife and descendants of said
descedant or debtor, and in the event that said
properly, shall exceed the sum of
in value, then there shall be a preferred lien on
said property to the amount of
dollars, for the equal benefit of the said widow
or descendants; provided, nothing herein shall
affect creditors existing at the time of the adop-
tion of this constitution."
The question then recurred on the motion of
Mr. JENIFER:
"Shall the whole subject-matter be laid upon
the table?"
And the result was as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Chapman, President, Ri-
caud, Lee, Chambers of Kent, Mitchell, Donald-
son, Dorsey, Wells, Jenifer, Ridgely, Colston,
James U. Dennis, Crisfield, Dashiell, Hicks,
Phelps, Sprigg, Bowling, Wright, McMaster,
Hearn, Fooks, Jacobs, Gaither, Thawley, Hard-
castle, Stewart of Baltimore city, Presstman,
and Ware—29.
Negative—Messrs. Blakistone, Dent, Hope-
well, Weems, Bond, Buchanan, Bell, Welch,
Chambers of Cecil, Grason, Shriver, Biser, An-
nan, Sappington, Stephenson, Stewart of Caro-
line, Gwinn, Brent of Baltimore city, Sherwood
of Baltimore city, Schley, Fiery, John Newcom-
er, Harbine, Michael Newcomer, Kilgour,
Weber, Hollyday, Slicer and Smith— 29.
A tie vote.
So the subject-matter was not laid on the
table.
Mr. RIDGELY said:
He had voted to lay the proposition on the
table, because he thought it too important to be
hastily disposed of, especially when there is dan- |
