|
yet if a constitution is formed, I would look at it
as an entire instrument, and if I should approve it
as a whole, 1 reserve the right to vote for the ne!w
Constitution, though it may not give us our full
and equal rights. But the new Constitution it
not yet formed, and until I see it complete I can-
not say whether it will receive my support. In
the meantime, let us postpone this subject until
we have completed our action on the elective
franchise, and then let us have full and thorough
discussion in all its latitude, and if we cunnot
change a vote here, the seed will be sown among
the people, which, at some future time, will
bring forth the harvest of reform, if it shall fail
now.
Gentlemen who are favorable to the doctrine
of representation based on population, have said
that it ought to be pressed at all times and under
ull circumstances, and that we ought to begin its
consideration even if we have to break off time
and again. I beg leave to differ with them, and
shall contend that mor* justice will be done to
the subject by postponing it now and taking it up
hereaJter, when we can bestow on it our single
and undivided attention.
One gentleman, from Caroline, has spoken of
those who are for postponement now as general-
ly acting to postpone every thing, and he has
used the unsavory metaphor of a flock of sheep
following the one which first bleats. If he means
to apply such a comparison, however general,
to me, he is much mistaken, as I am always for
action, prompt and speedy, and utterly opposed
to those who would procrastinate the work of
reform.
Mr. PRESSTMAN wished the Convention to un-
derstand the position he occupied as a delegate
from the city of Baltimore. He wished also that
his constituents and his colleagues should under-
stand it. He was against postponement. He
was against the practice of members of the com-
mittee, who took an opportunity to rise in the
House, and make an exposition of their views,
and then to abandon the ground they had taken.
[Mr. GWINN disclaimed any such intention.]
Mr. P. said, he did not allude particularly to
his colleague. He reminded his colleague, who
was very fond of looking into Convention pro-
ceedings, that it had always been permitted to
each member of a committee to make a report
embracing his views; he might avail himself of
that privilege. He referred to the statement
made by the gentleman from Charles, f Mr. MER-
RICK,) that no agreement could take place in that
committee; and stated that the views of his col-
league were opposed to those of a majority. He
intended, when he had the opportunity, to move
to discharge the committee from the further con-
sideration of the subject, because he wished to
offer a plan, and he knew other gentlemen would
offer plans, for the purpose of obtaining the vote
of a majority of the Convention in favor of some
principle. He thought it the proper course for
every gentleman in committee, or a minority, to
make separate reports, and then let them be
considered by the House. He did not allow that
he had been instructed to vote for the basis of
|
population; his constituency undoubtedly prefer-
red it; but he felt at liberty to make terms.
Mr. TUCK called for the previous question.
There was a second, and the main question
was ordered to be now taken; which main ques-
tion was on the motion of Mr. SOLLERS, to refer
the said report to the committee of the whole.
Mr. PHELPS asked tire yeas and nays which
were ordered, and being taken, resulted as fol-
lows:
Affirmative — Messrs. Chapman, President,Mor-
gan, Blakistone, Dent, Hopewell, Ricaud, Cham-
bers of Kent, Dorsey, Wells, Randall, Dalrym-
ple, Bond, Ridgely, John Dennis,James U. Den-
nis, Crisfield, Dashiell, Williams, Hicks, Hod-
son, Eccleston, Phelps, Miller, McLane, Tuck,
Bowling, McMaster, Fooks, Jacobs, Gwinn,
Stewart, of Baltimore city, Schley, Davis, and
Smith— 34.
Negative — Messrs. Donaldson, Sellman, Brent
of Charles, Merrick, Buchanan, Bell, Welsh,
Chandler, Lloyd, Dickinson, Sherwood of Tal-
bot, Celston, Chambers of Cecil, McCullough,
Bowie, Sprigg, Spencer, Wright, Thomas,
Shriver, Gaither, Biser, Annan, Sappington,
Stephenson, Nelson, Carter, Thawley, Stewart
of Caroline, Hardcastle, Brent of Baltimore city,
Presstman, Ware, Fiery, John Newcomer, Har-
bine, Kilgour, Brewer, Weber, Hollyday, Sli-
cer, Fitzpatrick, Parke, Shower, Cockey and
Brown — 46.
So the Convention refused to commit the re-
port to the committee of the whole.
The question then recurred on the motion of
Mr. SFENCER, to recommit the said report with
the instructions he had indicated.
Mr. THOMAS moved to amend said motion by
striking ont the instructions to the committee.
Mr. THOMAS referred to the order which had
been adopted by the Convention on motion of
Mr. GRASON, restiicting the committees from
reporting reasons; and suggested that the object
of that order was to prevent any influence which
a statement of opinions might have on the Con-
vention. The committee had made no report in
the shape of an argument on this, what he must
call, vital question, for vital he considered it, and
one on which he had taken ground which he
would never abandon without a severe struggle.
He thought, however, that the committee had
violated the spirit of the order, by coming for-
ward and throwing the weight of their opinions
against the course which he should advocate. He
desired that the resolutions should be recommit-
ted, with instructions to report a practical mea-
sure. He deprecated discussion on the abstract
propositions, whether representation should be
based on popular numbers; whether it should be
based on federal numbers; or on popular numbers
for the House and federal numbers for the Sen-
ate. He did not wish to waste time on abstrac-
tions. The members of the committee appeared
to be as various in their opinions as their num-
bers. They were not likely to make any report.
Had the committee reported any practical plan,
some progress might have been made. But con-
stituted as the committee are, the better plan
|
