this body. It was his great object to produce
harmony here, and final action on every part of
the Constitution.
If we cannot effect any thing here by compro-
mise, the result will be to send the Constitution
to the people at the polls piece-meal. If we take
the sense of the people on this one article,
he feared we would follow this evil exam-
ple on other parts of the Constitution. But if
we will take the proper responsibility by finally
deciding the question, there will be less cause to
fear tor the ultimate result of our deliberations.
He illustrated what might be the consequence
of this proposition to call upon the people to do
what we had been sent here to accomplish, by
referring to the report which had been made by
a magnanimous representative of one of the
smallest counties, (Mr. Lloyd, from Talbot.) In
that report it was proposed to give to the city of
Baltimore the right to send twelve members to
the House of Delegates. This was a liberal pro-
position, coming from a small county. It was
less than he would be willing to give to a city
of whose wealth and power Marylanders ought
not to be jealous or envious, but proud. This
delegation to Baltimore, a" a part of a measure
that is, in other respects, highly beneficial to the
less populous counties, may besustained by their
delegates here as a measure of compromise. But
suppose we take this article for Baltimore and
submit it by itself to the people, and, at the same
time, submit for separate action, to the people,
that part of this same report which proposes to
each county a right to choose one member of the
Senate; can any man fail to foresee the conse-
quences. The small counties would vote against
an increase of the Baltimore delegation, while
the large counties and the city of Baltimore would
vote against giving one Senator to each county,
without regard to their representative numbers.
And in this way, both articles of the Constitution
would be rejected. Then. as to the Judiciary,
if the Convention think that we ought to abolish
the life tenure of the judges and reduce the num-
ber in commission, are we to incorporate articles
in the Constitution subject separately to the sanc-
tion of the popular vote ? The same may be said
as to every article in the Constitution. If we are
to send it out to have separate votes upon each of
its provisions, we shall only make confusion
worse confounded, and all our labors will be of
no public utility. He preferred biennial sessions,
but felt but little zeal on that question when com-
pared with that which he avowed against this
distracting proposition to call upon the people to
do that which we were chosen to perform,
Mr. JOHN NEWCOMER remarking, that enough
had been said, and that he hoped that the Con-
vention would second the motion he was about
to make, demanded the previous question.
And on the question being put, "will the Con-
vention second the demand for the previous ques-
tion ?"
No quorum voted.
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent, called for the yeas
and nays, which were ordered.
And the question was again put, "will the Con-
37

vention second the demand for the previous question," and
was decided in the negative, as fol-
lows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Dalrymple, Buchanan,
Welch, Dickinson, Phelps, Hearn, Annan, Stephenson,
Nelson, Schley, Fiery, Neill, John New-
comer, Harbine, Michael Newcomer, Brewer,
Parke and Cockey—18.
Negative—Messrs. Chapman, President, Mor-
gan, Ricaud, Chambers, of Kent, Mitchell, Don-
aldson, Dorsey, Wells, Kent, Merrick, Howard,
Ridgely, Lloyd, Sherwood, of Talbot, John Den-
nis, Williams, Hicks, Hodson, Miller, Tuck,
Sprigg, Bowling, Spencer, George, Wright, Di-
rickson, Jacobs, Thomas, Shriver. Gaither, Biser,
McHenry, Carter, Stewart, of Caroline, Presst-
man, Ware, Waters, Anderson, Weber, Holly-
day, Fitzpatrick, Smith, Shower and Brown
—44.
So there was not a second.
The question then again recurred on the adop-
tion of the second section, as amended.
Mr. SPENCER said the object at which the gen-
tleman from Frederick, [Mr. Thomas,] aimed
was the defeat of this section, in some of the
views thrown out by the gentleman, he, [Mr.S.,]
entirely accorded; and the proceedings of this
day bear testimony, that the sentiment is not pe-
culiar with the gentleman from Frederick—that
he is operated upon by high and elevated princi-
ples, rising above the reach of party influences.
The gentleman from Frederick must be satisfied,
that there are other members of this body who
are actuated by principles equally high. The
man who looks not beyond the sphere of selfish
or party considerations, is undeserving of a seat
in this body. We should all satisfy ourselves,
that the object we have in view is one which
must be promotive of the public welfare, and
then march boldly to it. He agreed also with
the gentleman from Frederick, that the re-
formers in this body ought to act in union. But
when reformers differ among themselves, as to
the provisions which ought to be inserted in the
Constitution, where is to be the point of compro-
mise? Who is to lead in the attempt to reconcile
these differences of opinion? Every man must
stand on his own principles. He was one of those
who knew no leader. He could not abandon the
principles he had adopted from a conviction of
their correctness. There are many who consider
biennial elections as the proper principle; while
there are others who contend for annual sessions;
but he was willing, in a spirit of compromise, to
make some concession to those who thought dif-
ferently; and, therefore, he had offered various
propositions. The gentleman from Frederick,
and his friends, have taken a fixed stand against
all compromise, while we who are willing to
compromise, have been driven by the course of
the gentleman from Frederick, and his friends,
to take a separate vote on this question at the
polls. It appears, therefore, that there are divi-
sions among us all round. Some of the most dis-
tinguished members of reform, and of the whig
party, are. in favor of biennial sessions, while
some of the members of the reform, as well as