|
the discussion, desired to present a view of the
subject which might have the effect of arresting
the course of proceeding. When the mation was
made to postpone these resolutions, he had voted
in the affirmative, on two grounds : first, that it
was not a final report of the committee which
should be considered and discussed in committee
oT the whole; the other ground was, that it was
intended by the committee as an application for
instructions, without which the committee could
not agree on any report. In this view of the
subject he considered that to take up the resolu-
tions would have led to great embarrassment,
and might have established a precedent which
might have led to greater difficulties. It might
frequently occur that a committee might find
itself in difficulty, and if allowed to come in
and ask for instructions, it would lead to discus-
sion of the subject. Suppose the instructions are
given, and the committee report in conformity,
with them, the House is not concluded by its
previous action from giving a different vote when
lhat report shall have been considered.
The whole question comes up again, the House
may be plunged into a controversy, and angry
feelings might lead to an angry debate. He was
ready to adopt the opinion of the gentleman from
Kent, that we should come to a compromise of
views. It was clear that neither of the ex-
treme principles could prevail. It would be in-
expedient now to go into the discussion of the
subject. He had voted against the postpone-
ment of the resolutions on this ground. What
did the committee ask ? The committee came
here, in the first instance, unable to agree in a
report of any plan, because they could not unite
in deciding upon an important principle lying at
the foundation, and they asked for instructions
from the House. They have told us that they
cannot get a majority to agree. He wished,
therefore, that when the House should go into the
discussion of this fundamental principle, instead
of deciding it for the instruction of the Commit-
tee, it should finally decide it for the House.
This might not suit the committee. It had been
said by the gentleman from Kent, that if the
House come to a vote on the resolutions, the
committee would report immediately.
Mr. CHAMBERS explained. He had said they
would be unabled to make a report if they hud
the sanction of the House.
Mr. McLANE replied, that the question had
been decided by a vote of 60 to 17.
Mr. CHAMBERS did not consider that vote an
exponent of the ultimate decision of the House.
Mr. THOMAS enquired whether when he had
voted on a preposition, he was not bound by that
vote.
Mr. CHAMBERS explained that a gentleman
might give a vote in accordance with bis present
views, and might then move a reconsideration of
the vote. His vote simply expressed his opinion
according to the view he took at the time.
Mr. THOMAS replied, that he wished to act
here not as a Baltimorean, nor for the counties
alone, but as a Marylander, looking at the inter-
ests of the whole State. He desired to see these
|
county divisions cut up by the roots; and to es-
tablish districts of contiguous territory, and to
sub-divide Frederick aad the largest counties,
as to give equality to all. He desired to put an
end to all these contests which were mere ques-
tions of the distribution of political power.
Mr. CHAMBERS. And of offices.
Mr. THOMAS granted that. But he desired
that the same principle should apply in Baltimore
and in Talbot county. He did not wish that
Baltimore should have a representation too dis-
proportionate to Talbot, or give Talbot a power
below what she ought to have. He disavowed
acting for any party, or for the policy of the
hour, but so that he might see the State prosper-
ous during the residue of his days. From his
present position, he could not take any report
likely to emanate from the Committee without
amendment.
Mr. MCLANE did not wish to interfere in this
dispute — non nostrum lantas componere lites. It
had been his wish to restrict discussion, instead
of which he had provoked it. He insisted that
the question had been decided, so far as regards
the popular basis. The gentleman from Kent he
could not permit to be the exponent of his [Mr.
McL's] opinions. Notwithstanding the decision
of the House, when the report of the Committee
comes in, the subject would be as open to discus-
sion as it was before.
What was the proposition now brought for-
ward? Emanating from the head of the committee
it brought up the discussion on one of the most dif-
ficult points in controversy. He could not co-
incide in the propriety of this course. Instead of
deciding what should be the delegation of Balti-
more, and then sending the subject to the Com-
mittee, he would prefer to re-commit the whole
matter, if the Convention could make an imme-
diate report. If gentlemen did not approve of
that course, let the House go into Committee of
the whole on the resolutions, when amendments
could be offered. The admissien of the present
amendment would lead to the introduction of
numerous others, and all should be offered in
Committee, not to the House. He did not be-
lieve that the Convention would decide so grave
a question, without going into committee of the
whole.
Mr. JENIFER thought the amendment had been
merely to enquire into the expediency of insert-
ing the provision, but he found it to be a positive
instruction. He was willing to send it to the
Committee, but he would not give the instruc-
tions. The vote of yesterday settled the question
as to popular basis: the House must take the other
principle or a compromise. Instead of sending
instructions to the Committee, let the House de-
cide the question instanter. He was disposed to
yield some of his wishes rather than go home, be-
cause he could not get exactly such a Constitu-
tion as he would like.
Mr. CHAMBERS disclaimed all pretensions to
the character of a tactician. He had altogether
retired from the political field more than sixteen
years ago when he went on| the, bench, and had
taken no [part whatever since, except to vote.
|
