|
Mr. NEILL said he should then feel himself eon-
strained, if the amendment of the gentleman
from Kent, [Mr. Chambers,] should be brought
to a direct question, to vote against it.
Mr. NULL felt bimself compelled, under the
circumstances, to vote against the proposition of
the gentleman from Kent. As one of the repre-
sentatives of Frederick county, he was not dis-
posed to give Baltimore more representatives
than she was just); entitled to. He was prepared
to increase the representation of the largest coun-
ties in proportion to the increase of their popula-
tion as exhibited by the new census. The gen-
tleman from Kent had declined to modify his
proposition, and he, [Mr. N.] could not vote for
it as now presented. He thought it objectionable
that the committee should come before the
House with these isolated propositions, instead
of bringing forward some general proposition.
The amendment of the gentleman from Kent
was calculated to win the large counties; but
such isolated propositions did not embody the
general sentiment of the State. He was there-
fore compelled to give his vote against it.
Mr. CHAMBERS could not agree with the gen-
tleman from Washington, (Mr. Neill,) whose
proposition related to a subject not at all involved
in the amendment now before va and in regard
to which not a word of discussion had been had.
He certainly understood his amendment as the
precise principle of the Washington county plat-
form. It looked to no particular limitation of
number for the larger counties, nor to any prin-
ciple on which these numbers were to be based,
but solely to the equality in the delegation of the
largest county and the city. If one was increas-
ed, the other would be, and there was nothing in
this to commit any one to such increase in the
counties or against it.
Mr. BROWN withdrew his motion. He was of
opinion that whatever was the intention of the
gentleman who introduced this amendment, the
effect would be to array Baltimore city against
the counties, or, vice versa, the counties against
Baltimore. He believed that the greatest part
of the delegates from Western Maryland were
committed, when they came here, to give Balti-
more a representation equal to the largest coun-
ties of the State.
The amendment of the gentleman from Kent
therefore decided nothing. It settled no principle
but that Baltimore shall be limited in the number
of her delegates to the.'representatkm of the large?
counties. He referred to the original position o:
the counties, and asked if it was intended that
they should be kept in the nursery for ever. He
alluded to the seventeen who had voted for the
basis of population, and stated that they embracec
more than half the representation of the freemen
of the State. If Western Maryland did not ex-
hibit some energy, and throw off the shackles
which bound her, he should lose all his respect
for her. He hoped the gentleman from Kent
would not consume any mure of the time of the
House by discussing abstractions. The propo-
sition which had now been offered, he could not
think quite germane to the subject... The resolu-
|
tion! from the Committee contained two great
general principles, while the amendment of the
gentleman from Kent is confined to a single pro-
position; and if it should be adopted, what would
nave been effected by its adoption : He conclu-
ded with protesting against any further waste of
time; he was desirous to make a Constitution —
to go home and to save the money of the people.
Mr. CHAMBERS now renewed the motion that
the Convention resolve itself into committee of
the whole, for the purpose oi taking up the sub-
ject.
Some conversation followed on a point of or-
der, between Messrs. BUCHANAN, CHAMBERS,
JENIFER and the PRESIDENT.
After which,
Mr. BROWN enquired of the Chair, whether a
motion to lay the proposition en the table was in
order, pending a motion to go into committee >
The PRESIDENT stated that that motion was in
order, and would take precedence over the mo-
tion to go into committee.
Mr. BROWN moved that the whole subject be
laid on the table, and asked the yeas and nays,
which were ordered.
Mr. HARBINE was proceeding to speak,
when,
The PRESIDENT interposed and said that no
debate could be entertained on a motion to lay on
the table.
Mr. HARBINE. I was only going to remark
that I hoped the motion to lay the whole subject
on the table would be agreed to.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. As I have been adverted
to, I should like to explain the motion that I
made, and I hope that the gentleman from Car-
roll, (Mr. Brown,) will withdraw his motion to
enable me to do so.
Mr. BROWN. I will withdraw for th£ pur-
pose, w
Mr. FITZPATRICK said, he wished to place him-
self right in reference to the motion made by
him, to lay the whole subject on the table. He
was far from being opposed to a thorough discus-
sion of this question, or of giving his vote upon
it, when it should come up in some distinct and
tangible form; but in its present shape, being a
mere abstract proposition from which no practi-
cal result was likely to be deduced, he thought
it a merewasie of the time of the Convention
and of the people. He wished the matter sent
back to the committee for some definite and
practical report; or that failing to agree upon
any basis of settlement, they might be discharg-
ed by the House. He, therefore, moved to lay
the whole subject on the table.
The question then being on the motion to lay
the whole subject on the table,
The yeas and nays were called and ordered,
and being taken, resulted as follows:
Jlffirmativc — Messrs. Sellman, Buchanan, Bell,
Welch, Lloyd, Dickinson, Celston, Miller, Mc-
Lane, Spencer, George, Wright, Shriver, Gai-
ther, Biser, Annan, Sappington, Stephenson,
|
