|
ed if he had been wrong, if hit friend from
Frederick had advocated that basis.
Mr. BISEK said he had avocated it at home
and abroad, but was compelled to yield to a mod-
ification.
Mr. PHELPS enquired if the gentleman from
Frederick had supported that basis for the city of
Baltimore, as well as the counties ?
Mr. BISF.R answered, that he had advocated
it for the whole State, Baltimore included.
Mr. DAVIS resumed, expressing a wish to do
full justice to his friend from Frederick. He
felt, as Montgomery was the daughter of Frede-
rick, a strong desire at all times to carry out his
feeling of respect and veneration for his maler-
nal ancestor. He had come to her aid in this con-
vention, in endeavoring to obtain a reform of the
constitution; nor did he intend to restrict him-
self to the two questions, as stated by the gentle-
man for Baltimore — the basis of representation
and an elective judiciary. He wished to extend
reform beyond these two important principles
and to put additional guards round the treasury ;
and also to put guards and restraints round the
commissioner of loans as had been proposed.
Ail these substantial reforms he advocated. He
had taken his course from the example of Fred-
erick, and he would go to her again when he
wanted further promptings. He referred to a
speech made by his friend from Frederick, when
in the Legislature several years ago, in which
that gentleman had stated that the effect of the
establishment of the popular basis, would be to
legislate the small counties out of existence.
Now, Montgomery, St Mary's and Talbot would
scarcely suffer themselves to be legislated out of
existence. The gentleman from St Mary's had
not gone far enough back when he fixed the ori-
gin of the reform excitement. In Baltimore, in
1845, the license law of 1831, was denounced as
unjust and oppressive, as well as the appropria-
tion of the auction duties by the Legislature, and
the passage of the stamp tax. It was in conse-
quence of the discontents growing out of these
measures that the banner of repeal and reform
was unfurled together, repeal being coupled with
reform. The city of. Baltimore complained that
she contributed beyond her share to the public
treasury, and determined to remove the weight
from her own shoulders, and as a necessary con-
sequence it must fall upon the counties. To
show that a disinterested gentleman, a citizen of
another State, and an officer high in civil station
under the United States, had been led to a differ-
ent conclusion, he read an extract from an ad-
dress delivered by Mr. E. WHITTLESET, in Mont-
gomery county, in which he states that the State
of Maryland had submitted to many voluntary
sacrifices for the benefit of Baltimore and the
western country.
Mr. HAKBINE ca'led the gentleman to order,
which caused a slight interruption.
Mr. DAVIS resumed, stating that his object
was to show that Baltimore was not exclusively
entitled to a reputation for patriotism as had been
claimed for her on this floor. The counties were
entitled to a share in this reputatioB,[tor they w ith-
|
out benefit had submitted to the burden of taxa-
tion. To snow that the reform question bad
been agitated in the city of Baltimore at the time
he had stated, he referred to a preamble and re-
solutions adopted by the City Council*, in which
the licente law, the auction duties, and the stamp
tax were denounced as oppressive, and the id«-a
was thrown out that Baltimore was likely to be
crushed beneath the weight of these burdens. It
was alleged that if she had been properly repre-
sented in the Legislature these odious Jaws would
not have passed. If the hasis on population
should be adopted by the Convention, Baltimore
would be able to accomplish all she proposes —
repeal as well as reform.
It had been already hinted that the Maryland
canal, which Col. Abbot has ascertained by in-
strumental surveys will cost $11,000,000, will
have its termination there, and although you may
cut up Baltimore into districts, ai many as you
please, as has been proposed by the distinguished
gentleman from Frederick, (Mr. THOMAS,) when-
ever any scheme of commercial enterprise is
started, you will find party differences oblitera-
ted, and her representation united as one man.
Every effort would be made to secure and ad-
vance the interest of Baltimore, whatever sacri-
fice it might, as Mr. Whittlesey has shown it has
been, to the rest of the Si ate.
Mr. SPENCER moved the previous question, but
withdrew it at the request of
Mr. BISER, who said a few words to extricate
himself from a false position in which he com-
plained that the gentleman from Montgomery
had placed him. The gentleman had asked him
if he approved the principle of representation on
the basis of population; and when he had an-
swered in the affirmative, the gentleman from
Montgomery had quoted from a speech of hi&
(Mr. B's.) in 1845, to prove that he had been
guilty of inconsistency. He explained by stating
that the quotation was not a fair exposition of
his views, as ihey had relation only to the ques-
tion then before the House, which led him to
show what would be the effect of a mixed basis,
on different counties. He did not abandon the
ground of representation on population, nor would
he abandon it now. Nor did he give it up in
1849, but that he thought half a loaf better than,
no bread. He concluded with renewing the
motion for the previous question.
Mr. DAVIS interposed, and said that he stated
that the gentleman's calculations had brought
b im to see that the small counties woujd be legis-
lated out of existence — and fearing t^e effect o(
that retult, he added, "I am not to be understood
as advocating representation according to popu-
lation, 1 am willing to leave t n a t question to a
Convention."
The call for the previous question was second-
ed.
And the main question was ordered to be now
taken.
Mr. DOT SET inquired what the main questioi
was.
The PRESIDENT explained that, under the
amendment to the rulea, U would he on the mo-
tion to recommit.
|
