All those offices which were brought into being
by the Constitution of 1776, it would be neces-
sary to interfere with, if any change was pro-
posed at all; but this was not a case of that sort.
He would vote to leave the Legislature to en>
large or diminish the duties of the office, accord-
ing to the public exigencies, or to abolish it alto-
gether, if the public interest should so require.
Mr. BOWIE said that without the introduction
of the amendment, it would be the duly of the
State's agents to represent the interests of the
State in those works, which would require them
to examine into the interests of the State in refer-
ence to them. if this provision should be added,
it might induce them to believe that it was in-
tended to confer upon them a supervisory power
over the chartered rights of the companies, which
could not be conferred by the Constitution. The
creation of the office itself would confer all the
power which could be constitutionally conferred
by this clause; and it might be understood to re-
quire such action as, if taken, would be an infringement
of the rights contained in the charters.
Mr. SPENCER said that there were three grounds
upon which he should give his vote, to wit: he
found that according to the charters of these com-
panies, it was not possible for the State directly
to elect these officers; and that by this provision
of the gentleman from Frederick, and by the
amendment of the gentleman from Baltimore
county, there would be that control given to the
officers elected by the State, which would enable
them within the law, to have that kind of con-
stant supervision which would enable them, under
the law, to remove president and directors when-
ever they should be found to be deficient in the
performance of their duties. He should vote for
districts also, because there were antagonistic in-
terests in different portions of the State; and he
should vote for districts, in order to allow each
section a representation,
Mr, HOWARD wished to say a word or two up-
on the question of power, in reply to the gentle-
man from Prince George's, (Mr. Bowie,) in order
to show that he did not fall within the category
of those who wished to entrench upon the pre-
rogatives of the charteers. The gentleman from
Washington [Mr. Schley,] had stated this even-
ing, that before they reduced the toll, they con-
sulted the State's agents. His object was to di-
rect the State's agents how to proceed when
consulted. This was no infringement upon the
rights of the company. It was a. power which
was exercised by the State's agents now, that he
had proposed to make it their duty to exercise
the power to examine the subject, and instead of
taking into view the interests of the company as
an isolated company, to examine the whole ques-
tion. He merely had desired to say that this was
no invasion of the rights existing under the char-
ters.
Mr. DORSEY could not conceive how the num-
ber of men upon the Canal could have any con-
nection with the political character of the board.
Those employed upon the Canal boats were perfectly
independent of the Canal. It might just
as well be urged that the travellers upon a rail- |
road, or in an omnibus, or a stage, were subject
to the political influence of the conductors of
these several vehicles, or of the officers of the
turnpike, as that the boatmen upon the canals
could be politically influenced by the directors of
the canal.
Mr. SCHLEY wished again to disclaim any im-
putations upon the motions of any gentleman;
but his colleague [Mr. Harbine,] had stated the
fact that there would be two whigs and two dem-
ocrats upon the board, and he [Mr. S.,] deduced
the argument in opposition to the scheme for that
very reason, for when .they met to elect presi-
dent and directors, if they could not agree, no
election could take place until the treasurer
should be sent for to decide the matter. So in
the question of the reduction of tolls, the trea-
surer must be sent for, and the whole matter re-
hearsed before him before he could decide.
Mr. THOMAS said that gentlemen did not seem
to feel the force of the principle, that where 90
much property was to be represented, all parties
ought to be represented. What would he the
condition of the Legislature, if the whole one
one hundred and three members were of one political
party ? The yeas and nays could not be
called, and every proposition would be passed
through without opposition. It would be the
most despotic tyranny that could be conceived
of, and might lead to every species of abuse and
corruption. As to the extent of the power to be
wielded by this board, if it should be extended as
proposed by the gentleman from Anne Arundel,
[Mr. Dorsey,] there would be so much the more
reason for putting it into the hands of the people
to say who should be entrusted with such a power.
Was there not intelligence enough in the great
body of the people of Maryland to determine
that question ?
Mr. DORSEY moved that the Convention ad-
journ.
The motion was not agreed to.
Mr. DORSEY stated several amendments which
he would propose, in order to prevent any incon-
sistency in the bill with the previous action of
Convention, and was about to explain these
amendments, when he yielded to
Mr, CRISFIELD, who moved to adjourn.
Mr. JOHN NEWCOMER demanded the yeas and
nays;
Which were ordered, and being taken resulted,
Yeas 43, nays 31.
So the Convention agreed to adjourn.
Before the announcement of the decision,
Mr. MCHENRY, (with the unanimous consent of
the Convention,) gave notice that at the proper
time he should offer the following as a substitute
for the report and amendment:
"Sec. 1. The Governor, Comptroller and Trea-
surer shall constitute the commissioners of the
public works and property for this State. The
Governor shall be ex-officio President of, and the
Secretary of State clerk to this board.
Sec. 2. dollars a year shall be al-
lowed to the commissioners to deflay their tra-
velling expenses while in the performance of
their duties as members of the board, but no |
