The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1860-02-23
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MARYLAND LEGISLATURE

the Eastern Shore Railway appropriation bill, and
the amendment proposed by Mr.. Freaner, of Wash
ington county. His remarks very brief, and to
the purport that he would not vote for the amend
ment that he could not, under the provisions of the
18th section of the Sd article of the Constitution.
Mr.. FREANER arose just to edge in one fact He
| wished to inform the House that the amount of
taxes paid into the Treasury by Washington county
alone for internal improvements was nearly $780,
| OOO-nearly one-haf of the whole paid for the
| same time by the Eastern Shore.
Mr.. DENNIS questioned the gentleman whether
the greater part of this paid taxes by Wash
ngton county did not accrue from the internal i'm
provements the State in that section-the Ches-
apeake and Ohio Canal, for instance?
Mr. FREANER-Tbat cannot say.
Mr.. DENNIs-Ah
Mr.. JACOBS, of Worcester, obtained the floor
He was in favor of the bill, the whole bill, as it
was. He did not see any constitutional objections
to its provisions but, the contrary, he was in
favor of it because of its sound constitutionality
and for other possible reason. He entertain
ed this opinion with thorough knowledge of the
import of the words he uttered. He mindful
of this House, and ith that oath fresh in his
ory he stood here ready to cast his vote and raise
up his voice in favor of the bill.
Mr.. JACOBS thought the constitutional objections
raised by the gentleman who had proceeded him
as being of most transparent character He had
had the honor of representing his county in the
Convention of 1850, held the floor of this House
for the purpose of framing the present ConStitu-
trainers of that sacred instrument in this parti-
culaT.
The three grand objects of the Convention so
held were, in his opinion: lst, to increase the
! political power and influence of Baltimore CITY;
| End, to elective judiciary; and 3D. to
| control the visionary schemes and appropriations
! OF the Legislature for internal Improvements
| With the first two Of these measures he had moth
| ing to do.
| Mr.. JACOBS claimed that he was the originator of
the sections % and AZ of the Sd article of the Con-
stiution, and as the originator thereof considered
himself the best exponent of the intent of the Con-
vention in adopting his idea and putting it in the
| shape it now had upon the statute books. He had
| offered resolution in the Convention embracing
the provisions of those sections; the resolution
| discussed Governor Grayson and others sided
with him. The idea contained in the resolution
| was thoroughly ventilated. For himself Mr. ia
| cobs) was in the Convention the representative of
an agricultural interest, and took the active part
he did for the good of his constituents and to pre-
vent future lavishness in the appropriations of the
| Legislature of Maryland AS a member of that
Convention, he felt himself called upon to reply to
the constitutional bjections raised by the Honor
bic Speaker of this House. In the 22d section, ar
ticle 3, he had caused the word thereafter to be
inserted into the Constitution, that it should not
apply to past acts of the Legislature, but with an
entirely prospective view-applying only to future
Legislatures, and to prevent them from going into
| wild and visionary schemes. 1t never contempla-
ted that the past acts Of the State should be repu-
dated, or that she should break her faith. Every
thing in it looks to the future. 1t was in that
| submitted to the people and adopted. If the ob-
| cations of the State were to be nulifed repu-
dated, the people then would not have stood up in
| their might and approved that Constitution.
With such rider fixed on the bill that offered
| by Mr. Freaner, he hoped the bill would not pass
| The Court of Appeals had sustained the Legisla-
ture in the matter of the Baltimore and Ohio Rail
| road. The Legislature repealed the law compelling
| them to pass through Hagerstnwn, and they were
thus absolved from paying to Washington county
the forfeiture of Sl,OOO,O0O. This rider has been
| put upon the bill to make it obnoxious and cause
| lis defeat We do not ask direct appropriation
| to our shore-the gentleman from Washington
| county (Mr. Freaner) does. We cannot recognize
| his right to make such demand, when we do not
| do so ourselves.
Again, Mr.. Speaker, if it is declared uncnnstitu-
tiona for the State to redeem its pghted faith and
| pay just debt of SS50,0G0 which now ask for
the Eastern Shore to be consistent they should de
mand the S250O0 already paid the Eastern Shore,
out Of the 81 000,0 900 appropriated in the first place.
! They should ask that the sum already paid should
be refunded-be levied out of the property of the
! Eastern Shore. The State has already committed
herself. She cannot now withdraw. The payment
| of the S250,000 is an acknowledgment of indebted
ness, and she must pay the whole sum. The Justice
| of the claim has always been acknowledged The
! works of the Western Shore have received their
| appropriation. We ask ours We have paid mil
| lions for them--we now ask our share. Shall there
J be no constitutional objections for portion of
the State, and great objections for US He appealed
| to the sense OF justice OF the House
The hour of 31a o'clock had arrived and upon
motion, the House then adjourned till ~ O'Clock
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Upon the reassembling of the House in the after
noon, quorum being present, the Speaker an
| nOunced that the question upon the amend
ment of Mr.. Freaner, of Washington county.
! Mr.. FREANER called for the question.
| Mr. LANDING moved for a call of the House
Mr.. kHuoURN, in reply to Mr.. Jacobs remarks,
| said that he thanked the gentleman from Worces
to fort he ks he had he I'm.
honality of the bill. He looked in that direction
for information. He glad to produce it, He
asked the gentleman (Mr. Jacobs) the question,
whether he thought the first section of the bill now
before the House pledged the faith of the State for
the debt therein named to these roads, and was the
! ElktGn and Sassafras Railroad in existence at the
time of the passage of the act of 1885 To which
! Mr.. Jacobs replied as follows
| There was no such company the Elkton and
Sassafras Railroad Company or the other nine COM
panies Incorporated in the year 1885, but there was
road called the Eastern Shore Railroads.&c. 900
were appropriated for lt-part of the road was laid
out and one of these roads asking for appro-
priations is a continuation of the road. But he
thought the debt of Maryland was to the Eastern
Shore, and that it was contemplated under the
Constitution to pay that debt and the people of the
Shore could invest the money wherever they pleas
ed and in whatever works ofinternal improvement
so that they were the Eastern Shore
Mr. k.-I think the gentleman has answered the
question satisfactorily 1t is clear that some of
these roads were not in existence in 1885, and ,
therefore, the State could not be bound for any
debts to them
Mr.. KILBoURN then argued the Washington coun-
ty appropriation, the decision of the Court of Ap-
peas, &C, and said that Mr.. Jacobs has not com
planned of the want of power by the Legislature
absolve the railroad company from its obligations
or the want of faith on the part of the State in de-
priving Washington county from receiving its
dues.
| He contended that at the time the original BILL
approprating eight millions, passed, there sub
sisted debt of the State to these lately ncorpora
ted roads. There could be none, because they had
no corporate existence. Now, said Mr.. Kilbourn,
can any reasonable man for moment contend that
these roads were provided for by the act of 1885,
or that there was the slightest intention of the Lee
gislature to make any appropriations to them when
| the eight million appropriation was passed? He
contended, after mature examination of the subject
! and after having lent most attentive ear to the
arguments of the friends of the Eastern Shore bill
| that it entirely unconstitutional to pass that
| bill, thereby changing the names of the parties to
| whom the appropriation originally made by
| the act Of 1885, and substituting other parties in
| their stead. This at least, he concluded would be
admitted unconstitutional Ifit was cOntempa-
ted by the Legislature to benefit one corporation,
and it. it is claimed, the faith of the State was
pledged to them for a certain object it must be
constitutional to transfer those franchises to other
| corporations II, as 1t is contended the State is
bound to one party, another could not come in and
! claim a redemption of the pledge.
Mr.. JACOBS asked what if the appropriated
was IOr ttlt use OF Eastern SH0fe TO applied
| solely to her works of internal improvement? He
| further asked what the gentleman would have done
with that article OF the Constitution which provides
for this appropriation exclusively for the Eastern
| Shore?
Mr.. KrLBoURs would answer the questions by
| asking others. If the Legislature had power to
abrogate the claim of Washington county, was it
not in the power of the trainers of the new Consti-
tuition afterwards to do more and did they not do
it in the 22d and AID articles Of the Sd section?-
Again, the Constitution has abrOgated the claim of
the Eastern Shore; no Legislature has done it, but
higher law has sealed the fate of the claim; and
under these circumstances are we not inhibited
| from applying the sum of money asked to these
companies from the very fact that they not in
existence when the act of '35 became a law? Be
sides this, the provision in the Constitution to the
effect that all future appropriations at time by
the Legislature shall be limited to 100000, pre-
cludes the idea of passage of this bill. There
other provisions of the Constitution equally strin-
gent for instance, it declares that We the Legisa
tive department OF the Government. shall not loan
the credit of the State in aid of any company in-
dvidual. At least one of these companies has been
formed since the adoption of the Constitution;
no debt before that time existed between it and
the State and none could consequently be success
! fully brought up nOw Apart from all this, it was
evident that the State exempted from all in
debtedness to the first and original Eastern Shore
Railroad. This is plain as types and ink can make
it in our Constitution.
A word to the gentleman from Allegany, and he
was done. This gentleman, in his able argument
this morning, in consideration of the large number
of internal improvements through which the State
had successfully gone, now entertained fear in
supporting fostering and maintaining public spirit