The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1860-02-29

people OF Baltimore, and even to Mr.. Brock him.
self. In this connection, he would say one word
them to influence him. They spoke out for and
against the bill; but he waited for the sworn testi
monv and the official documents of this House be-
fore he would cast his vote He thought that if the
bill was all right, if it honest, if there was no
fraud in it, there use to delay the me- tter
The cause would not be injured by delay. He asked
postponement of the subject for these reasons.
Mr.. FREANER said that the Committee on Investi-
cations had been in session many days; a mass of
testimony had been taken; a volume of 1856 pages
had been formed of it. The charges of fraud against
the parties concerned were serious. They had been
reiterated over and over again by the press, and
re-echo by the people in all sections of the State.
Fraud is in most cases difficult to prove positively
conclusion to this erd must be arrived at by infer
ence. In most cases Of fraud, the tracks of its
perpetrators are so well covered that we must
arrive at our conclusions only by inference.
1t is urged by the gentleman from Baltimore
(Nr kratt) that the interests of the city of Balti
more are involved in this matter. HI wishes the
matter pushed through on this ground alone He
thought this not the main question at issue. 1t
true that Baltimore had more interests at stake
than any other locality, but the question of
most Importance to his mind was whether the
Legislature shall consecrate and sancty frauds and
lnlquity, if frauds have b en- committed or nouity
perpetrated, or not?
This was the question: in comparison with which
the barren question of interest to any particular
locality was light indeed. If we are to hurry this
measure through without investigation, without
aue consideration; II we are to turn deaf to
the charges OF fraud; if are to shut our ewes to
things most apparent, should prove recreant to
the interests of our constituents and sanction fraud
and give 1t the stamp OF this body. To this blind
and deaf course he would never consent His re-
quest was reasonable, and he thought the House
would accord it.
Mr.. KRAFT suggested that if the bill was post
poned to Monday or Tuesday, it might be amended
passed and sent back to the Senate stand chance of
haIn Had Nfa6a aud hootr
House again-which would virtually kill the bill.
He knew Mr.. F. did not wish to destroy the bill by
this means. He knew the gentleman was bold
enough to stand up and vote as he thought best,
and not seek to strangle the bill by postponement
To the gentleman's idea about fraud he would
simply say, that when fraud was perpetrated it
could be proved easily as anything else-as east
ly as theft.
Mr.. FREANER-Yes; but in this case it is proved
that the grantees received each $500 from Brock.
They acknowledge the fact, but they aege that
they did not receive the money for the grant, but
for a variety of other considerations.
The question then recurred upon the motion to
postpone the bill till Tuesday and make it the order
of the day, which was carried by the following vote:
Yeas-Messrs. Kilbourn, Speaker; Durant, Nor
gan, Briscoe, Burgess, Ford, Worthington, Denni-
son of Baltimore county, Quinlan, Jones of Talbot,
Chaplain, Lawson, Linthcum, Holland, Wilson of
Cecil, Miller, Jones of Prince Georges, Dennis of
Worcester, Kesser, Wilson of Hartford, Straughn,
Booze, Berry, McAllister, Turner of Baltimore city
Denison of Baltimore city, Coudy, Eakle Brnng,
Freaner, McCleary, Turner of oward, Brown-33
Nays-Messrs. Medders, Wech, Mackubbin, Rem
shaw, Stanford, Maxwell, Bryan, Legg, Starkey
Landing, Claggett, Routzahn, johnson, Salmon,
Gaill, Bayess, Mccoy, Goldsborough, Kraft, Seth,
Crowley, Smith, Stake, Griffith, Harding Beall
Roop, Gorsuch, Ms-29.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Mr.. MORGAN, of st. Mary's county, arose to
personal explanation. He said that when he left
the CITY of Annapolis, some eleven days aoo. he
had inst a1 S.old nrh 70
to the report of the Committee on Corporations
investigating the charges of corruption, &c. At
that time he was of the same mind with Mr.. Colds
borough. On returning this morning he had found
that gentleman entertained different views on the
subject. For himself, Mr.. NJ. said he had never
been actually against the Brock bill, but he could
not and would not vote for the bill now offered to
the House. He had made up his mind to grant a
charter to the Brock Company if such restrictions
were thrown around it as was necessary-not
otherwise. He did not blame Mr.. Goldsborough
for what he did, for it was done with misunder-
standing. Since he aad been away from the city he
had Travelled over portions of Charles county,
Prince Georges county, and his own county. The
feeling of the people was everywhere against the
Brock bill. lie had seen not a single man in favor
of the BILL and had come back impressed with the
idea that it was as unpopular as a thing could
we'll be.
ton be had with Mr. Morgan, he understood that
gentleman to agree in all points with himself upon
the testimony which had at that time been addu-
ced. He understood the gentleman to authorize
him to sign his name to report on the testimony
In the case, and not to report upon the bill. He
had acted accordingly. Since the gentleman has
thought best to go home and learn the opinion of
his constituents, he was sorry misunderstanding
had occurred. When he came here, he came as a
freeman. He would not be trammeed or bound
down by any one. He voted as he pleased.
Mr.. MORGAN stated that be had never heard of
any report to be made upon the evidence in the
case. All that he had ever heard of was report
to be made upon the bill. He never contemplated
anything else He was not in favor of giving an
unconditional charter to Brock Co. at that time.
He wac adverse to it. SO was Mr.. Goldsborough;
and under these circumstances he made the UentIo-
man his proxy.
He thought both agreed upon what was to be tn e
bill, what it to contain, &C. He declared most
emphatically that Mr.. Goldsborough was opposed
to the bill when he made him proxy. He could
never vote for Objectionable features in the bill
He was against the one cent tax and would never
vote for it,
As to the opinion of his constituents, he did not
care for the gentlemans opinion. He Mr.. Nor
gam represented constituency whose voice he
would obey-whose mandate it gave him pleasure
to acquiesce in. He thought, in a few weeks many
gentlemen here will have cause to regret their
course of action, and wish they had obeyed the be-
hests of the people on the highways of their
counties.
ARRIVAL OF THE BALTIMORE COMMITTEE.
At halfpast twelve O'Clock the committee ap-
pointed by the "three cent" meeting, at the Mary
land Institute, arrived at the Capitol and were
courteousy received by Speaker Kibourn, who
happened to be at the time in the rotunda, Mr. Ford
being in the chair.
Speaker KILBoURN bl ought the memorial before
the House, and asked suspension of the rules, in
respect to the numerous committee who brought it
here that it might be read The rules were sus-
pended and the memorial read, which embraced the
resolutions adopted at the meeting Saturday
evening.
After the reading had commenced, Mr. MAXWELL,
OF Cecil suggested as it was to be printed there
was no necessity OF taking up the time of the House
by reading it.
Mr. McALLIsrER hoped that it would be read
He that gentlemen would all like to hear it.
Mr. Maxwell withdrew his motion and the read
ing was completed.
Mr.. MORGAN moved to print l 900 copies of the
memorial.
Mr.. Brown argued against it. He said the whole
matter had been printed in the newspapers.
Mr.. KILBoURN thought we should not look to
newspapers for our information; should take
the documents of the House; they were sufficient
and reliable. He thought it would facilitate bus-
ness to print and therefore advocated it.
Mr.. HARDING coincded with the gentleman. He
would do more. He would move that we adjourn
and allow the gentlemen of this Committee to see us
in person-to lay before their ideas and take us
by the button-hOle and talk Familiarity with US
Laughter
Mr.. FREANER would move to amend by entailing
the expense upon the gentlemen of the Baltimore
Committee for printing the document.
Mr.. kILBoURN said it was not the expense. 1t
was the bounden duty of this House to respect the
large committee of citizens from Baltimore. They
were here to call upon in the name of their CITY,
We should treat them as the representatives of a
great city; entertain their request in a respect
full manner. 1t was their due, and he would sta nd
up for it. Applause. As to the paltry $40 it
would cost to print, he would pay the money him
SELF Applause.
Mr.. McALLIsrER.-"S would l. so would l."
At this point great deal of excitement was Wis
ible amongst the large audience well as among
the members.
Mr.. FREANER withdrew his amendment, and the
question recurring on the original motion, it was
carried by large majority.
HOUSE OF DELEGATES.
February 2Sth.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
lnmittAd in tho raenla- DnaA"a;-e
LOCAL PASSED.
The following bills were passed
A bill to incorporate the Baltimore Rosine Asso-
citation. bill approving the Ordinance No. G. of
the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, passed
December SO, authorizing Z. F. Lumpton, Charles
G. Ridgeley and Saml. Pentz, to lay down track