The Constitutional Convention of 1850-1851 29

Harbine did not deem it important that the state was a mere stockholder rather
than an outright owner in public works, especially in light of the state's position as
majority stockholder in the C & O Canal Company. Nor did he see any harm in pro-
viding only general duties for the board. "It must be recollected," he observed, "that
we are now making a Constitution, not a set of laws, and in doing this all that would
be required, is to give the outline, the general principle, leaving all detail to the
Legislature."¹⁸

Elias Brown of Carroll County took issue with the contention of Smith and Schley
that the appointment of the state's agents was best left to the General Assembly. He
had no fear of popular election of these officials, and indeed he thought it preferable.
He did not want to leave "any patronage whatever in the hands of the Legislature—
none—not in the smallest degree" as, in his opinion, "it would have a corrupting and
baleful tendency." Schley immediately replicated that the appointment of agents was
not really much patronage, since all they would do is vote the stock.¹⁹

William Tuck of Prince George's County pointed out that, whether by design or
coincidence, the governance of the C & 0 Canal Company seemed to follow political
changes in the state. "This unfortunate company for years has been a prize," he ob-
served, "and subject of contention between the great parties." Perhaps upon the naive
assumption that such political motives were anathema to the legislature, he feared
the elective process as being too strongly influenced by partisan considerations and
thus was content to leave the entire matter to the General Assembly. He therefore
opposed both constitutional propositions. Moreover, he said, "this Constitution had
now full weight enough—more probably then it could carry through the race it was
to run on the political course."²⁰

Also speaking at length in support of the existing system was Alien Davis of
Montgomery County. Davis was no stranger to the issues at stake; not only was he
one of the five incumbent state agents appointed by the legislature (two others also
served as delegates to the convention), but he had recently served as agent and trustee
for contractors doing work on the C & O Canal. He also pointed out the limited function
to be served by a board that merely voted the state's stock. Any attempt at a deeper
intrusion into the affairs of the companies or the operations of the projects would be
resisted as the corporate directors and officers would look to the corporate charters
for their authority.²¹

After considerable wrangling over the reasons for the enormous cost overruns in
completing the canal and the railroad, Benjamin C. Howard, a delegate from Baltimore
County and one of the original promoters and organizers of the B & O, offered an
amendment to the Thomas proposal designed to curtail some of the pernicious price
warfare between the canal company and the railroad. His amendment, ultimately
adopted, authorized the board to appoint the directors "in every railroad or canal
company in which the State has the power to appoint directors" and also "to review,
from time to time, the rate of tolls adopted by any company, and use all legal powers
which it may possess, to obtain the establishment of a rate which may prevent an
injurious competition with each other, to the detriment of the interests of the Treasury
of the State, and report their acts annually to the Legislature." Howard had moved
the amendment earlier in the debate but had been ruled momentarily out of order.²²