company had been almost microscopic; and, if
they had been the owners of the work, they could
not have evinced more caution or used more vigi-
lance. This tribute to their zeal and fidelity was
due to the zealous and wise discharge of the
trusts reposed in them by the State. The argu-
ment of the gentleman from Anne Arundel in-
volved the idea that the election of those agents
by the people would necessarily invest them with
greater intelligence, integrity, vigilance and ac-
tivity in the discharge of their trust. How such
an effect could be produced by the change of the
mode of appointment, was to him incomprehensi-
ble, and it certainly was unnecessary seriously to
combat such a position. The same duties are to
be discharged, the same sources of information
are open, and the same amount of intelligence
can be had under either form of appointment,
The argument of the gentleman further assumed
that individuals would seek the situation of
director of the canal. On the contrary, so far
from this being correct, the difficulty would be
in finding persons willing to accept the station,
owing to the immense responsibility, the con-
sumption of time and the scanty remuneration.
So long as the canal had been incomplete, no ob-
jection had been raised to western men, but now
that it was completed, the cry was raised of an-
tagonistic interests between the western counties
and the State itself. If it was desired that no
director should be elected from the three western
counties, the election by the people would not
prevent it any more than the election by the Le-
gislature. The facts would show that those most
familiar with such works could but carry them
on. The stockholders had recently recommend-
ed a reduction of tolls, but the board, composed
in part of men from those very counties, had in-
variably refused it. One of the State's agents,
from Washington county, strongly advocated the
reduction of tolls, to attract an immense trade
from the whole surrounding country; his efforts
had been thus far unavailing.
The argument that the road terminated in the
District of Columbia, instead of Baltimore was
an argument in favor of the construction of a ca-
nal from Georgetown to Baltimore, and cot an
argument against the present mode of electing
State's agents. It was his own opinion that it
would have been better originally, that the canal
should have terminated at the commercial emporium
of the State. As to the directors coming
from the District of Columbia and from Alexandria,
he would say that in his judgement, but for
the financial aid of the director from the city of
Alexandria, [Henry Daingerfield, Esq.,] the
Chesapeake and Ohio canal would not now have
been completed.
He could not conceive that there should be
any antagonism between the interests of Maryland
and Allegany county, because that policy
would produce the largest amount of trade over
the canal from that county, would bring into the
treasury the largest amount of revenue. Would
any one suppose that the Baltimore and Ohio
rail road should not have any directors in the
city of Baltimore for fear they should further |
the interests of that city at the expense of the in-
terests of the State? But all this was foreign to
the matter under consideration. If the gentle-
man from Anne Arundel would introduce an
amendment embodying his views, he would not
say that he should refuse to support it. The
question now was upon the election by the peo-
ple or by the legislature, and we were called up-
on to consider the arguments for and against each
mode.
Mr. THOMAS said, that the gentleman had
drawn a parallel between the Baltimore and Ohio
Railroad and the Chesapeake and Ohio canal, in
relation to the appointment of directors of those
corporations. There was one very essential dif-
ference between the two cases. Baltimore city
was havily taxed on account of the money em-
barked in the railroad, and had a great interest
at stake. They had so large an amount of pro-
perty there, that they had a right to be represented
by their own citizens. The case was dif-
ferent with the District cities. Many years ago
Washington, Georgetown, and Alexandria had
taken a million and a half of stock in the Chesa-
peake and Ohio canal. The government of the
United States had subsequently paid the whole
of the debt contracted in Europe by those, cities in
order to take the stock. They had now no pecuni-
ary interest in the canal. But the general govern-
ment had left in their hands the right to vote on
account of the stock they bad taken, as if they
still owned it. Mr. Pugh having gone to Europe
and negotiated the loan, it was contended that
the honor of the Union would be involved if the
interest upon the debt would not be punctually
paid; and it was ascertained that the corporations
had a great indisposition to pay the interest. For
this reason the government has assumed the
debt.
He did not hold the opinion that the only way
to secure proper men for office was to make it
lucrative. On the contrary he believed that men
would he obtained of a higher tone of character
and a purer patriotism, if the salary was not very
lucrative. Electors of President and Vice Presi-
dent of the United States received merely their
expenses, and yet there was no want of suitable
men to take that office,
He agreed with the gentleman from Anne
Arundel, that all this public property invested in
the Chesapeake and Ohio canal ought to be
watched over by delegates elected immediately
by the great body of the people of Maryland.
Upon the management of that canal depended
the perpetuation or dimunition of the tax now inflicted
upon the people.
It had be said that this was a mere question of
meum and tuum, whether one class or another
class of gentlemen were to be appointed. But
the question could not be narrowed down to that.
So far from being surprised at the harmony between
the positions occupied by the gentleman
from Anne Arundel and himself, he was much
more amazed at the contrariety of opinions between
the gentleman from Washington county
and himself. He had said previously that this
question of reform was mainly with a view of |
