52 Board of Public Works
ment of the test oath, and other tactics, certainly intimidated non-Unionists, partic-
ularly on the Eastern Shore. It was claimed that Federal soldiers went further and
actively assisted the Unconditional Unionists while impeding the conservative, or
regular, Unionists, although the extent of such interference is open to debate.3 In any
event, the "radical" Unconditional Unionists won the day, gaining control of the Gen-
eral Assembly and electing four of the state's five congressmen as well as their can-
didate for state comptroller. Gov. Augustus W. Bradford, recognizing the great victory,
joined the call for immediate measures to end slavery. This entailed, of course, a
constitutional convention.
The new legislature met on 6 January 1864. Heeding the governor's call and its
own popular mandate, it enacted on 3 February a bill submitting the question of calling
a convention to the people. At the election, to be held on 6 April, the voters were also
to select the convention delegates. Should the vote favor a convention, one was to be
called three weeks later. Once again the Unconditional Unionists were successful. The
call for a convention was approved by a nearly two-to-one majority, and, of the 96
delegates elected, 61 were Unionists. The other 35 were Democrats from southern
Maryland.4 When the convention met and organized, it elected as president the Un-
conditional Unionist state comptroller, Henry Goldsborough of Talbot County.
Once again the question arose of what to do about the state's interest in the various
internal improvement companies. Much of the groundwork had been laid in the 1850-
51 Constitutional Convention, and there was little dispute about the general policy
to be followed. The restrictions against lending the state's credit to private entities
or becoming involved with any new works of internal improvement were reaffirmed
with little dissension or debate. The decision to have the state divest at least some,
if not all, of its current investments in the improvement companies was also confirmed.
The real issues were the mechanical ones: (1) which of these investments would be
liquidated, when and under what circumstances or conditions, and who would super-
intend the disposition; and (2) who, in the meantime, would protect the state's interest?
These two issues were handled by different committees, although the results even-
tually coalesced.
There was not a great deal of debate about the second issue—the function then
committed to the Commissioners of Public Works. On 12 May, John R. Sneary of
Washington County moved that the Committee on the Tenure, Duties and Compen-
sation of All Civil Officers Not Embraced in the Duties of the Standing Committees
(a special standing committee designated by the convention) "inquire into the expe-
diency of abolishing the office of Commissioners of Public Works." The committee
chairman, Daniel Clarke of Prince George's County, responded that the matter was
already before the committee "and is under consideration."5
Two weeks later, on 25 May, the committee made its report. It proposed that "the
Governor, the Comptroller of the Treasury and the Treasurer, shall constitute the
Board of Public Works" but shall receive no additional compensation for that service.
The duties established for the board were essentially those then committed to the
commissioners—exercising a "diligent and faithful supervision of all public works in
which the State may be interested as stockholder or creditor," appointing directors in
the canal and railroad companies, and using its powers to adjust the toll rates of the
improvement companies to avoid injurious competition and to promote the agriculture
