|
Messrs. BRENT, ef Baltimore city, RANDALL,
and SAPPINGTON.
BASIS OF REPRESENTATION.
The Convention thereupon resumed. the con-
sideration of the resolutions reported by Mr. MER-
RICK, from the committee on representation.
The pending question was on the motion of
Mr. SPENCER, to recommit the report to the
committee on representation, with instructions
to report a basis of representation on some fair
principle of compromise.
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent, enquired of the Pre-
sident, whether it would now be in order to
move an amendment.
The PRESIDENT replied in the affirmative.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Then I more the following
amendment:
"In such manner that the city of Baltimore
shall be entitled to the same number of represen-
tatives in the House of Delegates, as may be al-
lowed to the largest county in the State."
I have no desire, (remarked Mr. C.,) to discuss
this question at the present time, but I hope that
it will be left open to discussion, and that the
previous question will not be called; so that if
gentlemen desire to discuss it, they may have
the opportunity to do so.
Mr. THOMAS said. he would make a last effort
upon this point, as to the mode of proceeding,
which should be adopted. He entered his pro-
test against permitting one particular committee
to depart in any way from the rule prescribed
by the Convention for the government of all its
committees.
Mr. THOMAS staled that the committee on Re-
presentation had departed from its proper course.
For several long, tedious weeks, the Convention
had had no report of a practical character before
them, nothing but these abstract resolutions.
And if the Convention were about to go into the
discussion of them, long, tedious weeks might
again be wasted without reaching any result.
He objected to the way in which the members
of the Judiciary came in, for the purpose of feel-
ing their way by offering amendment after
amendment, until they could shape the resolu-
tion to their wishes. Had the Legislative com-
mittee, of which his colleague was a member,
pursued a similar course, a great deal of time
would have been lost in settling negative proposi-
tions, which, ingeniously introduced, necessarily
lead to new discussions. The clear-headed gen-
tleman from Queen Annes, (Mr. GRASON,) had
introduced a rule, which was adopted by the
Convention, restricting the reports of the com-
mittees to mere results. The object of this
rule was to expedite the work. He illustrate(
the evil which would result from adopting the
course proposed by this amendment. The Con
vention would make little progress; amendment
would be offered, and the representation of a
single county would occupy one day, and another
would consume the next day, and so the Conven
tion would go on. He wished the Committee
to execute the order of the Convention. He
replied to the remark of the gentleman from
|
Kent, (Mr. CHAMBERS,) that the responsibility
of making the report rested on him, and that the
Convention was not bound by it, by reminding
that gentleman of the practice of the Senate and
House of Representatives of the United States,
where the Chairman of a committee makes an
elaborate report, which he has prepared on his
own responsibility, while every individual mem-
ber of the committee may rise in his place and
make any objections in the form of explanation,
if the gentleman from Kent was permitted to
hold the Convention, until he could produce the
effect he desired by the propositions he offered,
he, [Mr. T.] might be compelled, in consequence
of the introduction of matter, which, in his opin-
ion, was objectionable, to vote against the Con-
stitution altogether, when the Convention closed
their work. He might refuse to receive the lit-
tle good which was mixed up with so much evil.
What then was the use of keeping these proposi-
tions back in the committee? Let them be brought
before the House.
He adverted to the various propositions now
before the House, and asked what real progress
would have been made, if any of them were
adopted. He desired that the Committee should
come in with a report, and that every member of
it, who objected to it. should state what those
objections were. With a report from the com-
mittee in a proper form, the House would have
something to act on.
Mr. THOMAS moved the previous question, but,
The PRESIDENT having stated that, under the
amendment recently adopted to the rules, the
previous question would operate not on the mo-
tion to commit but on the amendment of Mr.
CHAMBERS.
Mr. T. disclaiming any intention to cut off de-
bate on the amendment, withdrew the demand
for the previous question.
Mr. GWINN accorded with the views thrown
out by the gentleman from Frederick, and ex-
pressed his hope that the senior member of the
Committee would make a report, and that any
member of the Committee would be permitted to
rise and explain his objections. He believed
that was the course approved by a majority of
the Committee, several of whom were now ab-
sent. He thought the proposition of the gentle-
man from Kent was of an uncertain character.
That gentleman had denominated his (Mr. G's)
proposition an absti action, but would the amend-
ment offered by the gentleman himself; lead to a
practical result? He was yet unable to per-
ceive the trap which was contrived by the amend-
ments. The object, evidently, was to produce
combinations among the counties, the effect of
which would act injuriously on the prospects of
Baltimore in the State. Long experience had
made the gentleman from Kent a great tactician,
but ingenious as he was in his movements, the
object of the present amendment was very palpa-
ble. He believed that if the report was now re-
committed, there would be a speedy report. Some
of the members are indeed away, but they would
be back on Monday morning, and he thought
they could come to an agreement.
Mr. MCLANE, without intending to enter into.
|
