So the amendment to the amendment was
adopted.
On motion of Mr. SHRIVER it was ordered that
it be entered on the journal that the absence
of Mr. Biser from the Convention is occasioned
by indisposition.
The question then recurred upon the amend-
ment as offered by Mr. FITZPATRICK and amend-
ed on the motion of Mr. RIDGELY.
Mr. HOWARD moved to amend the amendment
as amended by adding at the end thereof the fol-
lowing:
"And in case the receipts in anyone office
shall exceed these allowances and compensation,
the fees in that office shall be proportionably reduced."
Mr. HOWARD said that he had been a member
of the Legislature at the time that a proposition
was introduced to tax these officers. This war
of the legislature against the clerks had contin-
ued for several years, but was at last given up.
The clerks and the registers got the better of the
Legislature; and so they would do again. But
it was not just or equal that this tax should go
into the treasury, because it was levied upon the
people of a particular portion of the State, where
there happened to be a dense and crowded popu-
lation, and not upon the whole State. It would
not be fair to take the money paid by them and
put it into the treasury for the use of the whole
State. It was more just that they should pay less
for the transaction of their business. Besides,
it would be impossible for this to go into the trea-
sury; because, it never would be collected to go
into the treasury. The clerks would let the fees
remain for years uncollected, and they could
never be collected. It was not only inequal, but
fruitless, to try to obtain a revenue in this way.
Mr. MERRICK said that he could not vote for
the amendment, because it would create, neces-
sarily, different charges in different quarters of
the State, fur the same services. It would cer-
tainly destroy the symmetry of the system. The
citizen of one county would not be satisfied to be
charged a higher rate than what the cititizen of
another county paid. When it should be in order,
he would move an amendment which would leave
it to the Legislature to regulate all the charges
and provide for the collection of the fees by the
local officers, and for the payment of the salaries
of those officers, not to exceed two thousand dol-
lars to each one.
Mr. HOWARD demanded the yeas and nays on
his amendment,
Which were ordered,
And being taken,
Resulted, yeas 31—nays 45—as follows :
Affirmative.—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't., Mor-
gan, Hopewell, Ricaud, Mitchell, Donaldson,
Randall, Howard, Bell, Welch, Ridgely, Dickin-
son, Sherwood, of Talbot, Colston, Bowie, Sprigg,
Bowling, Wright, McHenry, Gwinn, Sherwood,
of Baltimore city, Schley, Fiery, Neill, John
Newcomer, Harbine, Michael Newcomer, Brew-
er, Anderson, Fitzpatrick and Cockey,—31.
Negative— Messrs. Dent, Lee. Dorsey, Wells,
Kent, Sellman, Weems, Bond, Brent, of Charles, |
Merrick, Jenifer, John Dennis, James U. Den-
nis, Dashiell, Hicks, Hodson, Goldsborough, Ec-
cleston, Miller, Spencer, Grason, George, Dir-
ickson, McMaster, Hearn, Fooks, Jacobs, Tho-
mas, Shriver, Annan, Stephenson, Magraw, Nel-
son, Thawley, Stewart, of Caroline, Stewart, of
Baltimore city, Brent of Baltimore city, Ware,
Kilgour, Waters, Weber, Hollyday, Smith,
Shower and Brown-45.
So the amendment was rejected.
The question again recurred on the adoption
of the amendment as offered by Mr. FITZPATRICK
and amended on the motion of Mr. RIDGELY.
Mr. MERRICK was about to move his amend-
ment, when
Mr. BOWIE suggested that it should come in
as a separate section. He trusted that the Con-
vention would strike out the proposition of the
gentleman from Allegany.
Mr. SPENCER said that he was in favor of that
course. If the plan was adopted to pay the ex-
penses of the officers out of the fees of those offi-
ces, then the effect would be that the Clerks would
so graduate the charges of their clerks that the fees
of the offices would be entirely absorbed. The
same extravagant system would be continued.
Precisely the same frauds would be perpetrated as
heretofore. He would ask for a division of the
question; to be taken first upon striking out.
The question being taken up striking out, it
was agreed to.
The question then recurred upon the insertion
of the amendment offered by Mr. FITZPATRICK,
and amended on the motion of Mr. RIDGELY.
Mr. HARBINE offered as a substitute for said
amendment, the following:
"At its first session after the adoption of this
Constitution, reduce and so graduate the fees and
perquisites of the registers of wills in the several
counties and the city of Baltimore, that no one
of them shall recive more than a fair and reason-
able compensation for performing the duties of
his office."
Mr. HARBINE said, that his amendment made
it imperative upon the Legislature to act upon
the subject. It said nothing upon the maximum
salary to be given. He would not debate the
question; his general views upon it having been
well expressed by the gentleman from Queen
Anne's, (Mr. Spencer.) It seemed to him that
in some places the office would be a sinecure, the
clerk employing others to do the work, and re-
ceiving his regular salary. They ought to be
paid in proportion to the amount of labor per-
formed. He was opposed to a fixed salary. He
wished the pay to come from the fees, and to be
proportioned to the labor. His amendment was
intended to steer clear of all the difficulties at-
tending the proposition which had been proposed,
Mr. GRASON was in favor of the proposition
just submitted. He understood the proposition
about to be moved by the gentleman from Charles,
(Mr. Merrick,) to be to leave the compensation
to be fixed by the local authorities. He consi-
dered this as equivalent to leaving it to the offi-
cers themselves, to determine their own compen-
sation. The commissioners were well acquainted |
