Gaither, Stephenson, Nelson, Stewart of Balti-
more city, Sherwood, of Baltimore city. Ware,
Schley, Brewer, Weber, Parke and Brown—18.
So the amendment was adopted.
The question then recurred on the amendment
of Mr. THOMAS, to insert in said section after the
word "every" in the second line, the word "sec-
ond."
Mr. T. then modified his amendment, by mov-
ing to amend said section by inserting after the
word "day" in the second line, the words "in
the year eighteen hundred and fifty-four."
The Convention now became involved in a
long conversational discussion, (chiefly verbal
and technical,) as to the effect and operation of
the amendment, and its probable conflict with
the vote of the Convention, already given on the
subject of biennial sessions;
Messrs. CHAMBERS, of Kent, THOMAS, PHELPS,
BUCHANAN and SPENCER, taking part therein.
And pending the question,
The Convention adjourned until to-morrow
monling at eleven o'clock.
DEFERRED DEBATE.
The following are the remarks referred to in
the last number, made on the presentation by
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent, of his report on the
basis of representation:
Mr. PRESSTMAN deaired to inquire of the gen-
tleman from Kent, (Mr. Chambers,) by what
rule he and those of the committee who had uni-
ted with him in the report just submitted, had
arrived at the number of representatives to com-
pose the House of Delegates. His reason for
propounding the inquiry was, to ascertain the
whole scope and object of the report, that it might
be fully understood and reflected upon. If it be
said that the rule adopted was to settle the basis
upon the compromise act. as it was termed, of
1836, he wished to call the attention of the Con-
vention to the fact, that this report sought to make
no change in the basis of representation already
guarantied by that act, in favor of the principle
of popular representation, but that it actually
condemned that compromise by seeking to de-
stroy the advantages secured by the federal
basis. He wished to be informed what was
the reason of this departure in that particular
alone from the rule, if it could be so called, in
the act of 1836.
He begged to invite the serious reflection of
the Convention to the disposition manifested in
that report, while it did not yield any thing to the
white population of the State beyond what was
Becured by the act to which he had referred,
sought to engraft a provision new in its character
in the history of this State, or of any other in the
Union, viz: That the aggregate vote of the po-
pulation, including every negro, free or slave,
was to compose the basis. This surely would be
regarded as a retrograde movement .by the great
body of the people of Maryland. As a represen-
tative in part of the city of Baltimore, he had
early announced his willingness to adjust this
question of representation upon a fair principle
38

of compromise. He could not refrain, however,
from saying that he regretted to find that any gen-
tleman should desire to settle the basis of representation
upon a principle such as that contained
in the report just submitted—which not only re-
fused any concession to the people of Western
Maryland and to his constituency comprising of
themselves nearly one-fourth of the population of
the State—but offended their sense of justice and
right, by seeking to place the entire negro population
of the State upon an equality with them, so
far as constituting the basis of representation. In
truth what could be more abhorent that while
Baltimore with her white population, numbering
nearly one hundred and forty-two thousand souls,
was limited to a representation of six delegates,
every slave in Maryland should be considered as
worthy to constitute in part that basis of repre-
sentation. More than that, sir, the county of
Kent, with but a five thousand, five hundred and
ninety-five while population, has granted her in
this report three delegates.
He had sought the information from the gen-
tleman from Kent, perhaps in a manner somewhat
irregular, but inasmuch as the gentleman
from Charles, (Mr. Merrick,) the distinguished
Chairman of the committee, had in presenting
his report accompanied it with the expression
that each separate report of the committee, as
well as his own, looked to the establishment of
a rule of apportionment, and such also had been
announced by the gentleman from Baltimore
county, (Mr. Howard,) as his object in the re-
port he had submitted. These observations had
induced him to propound the question
Mr. CHAMBERS. The gentleman, (Mr. Presstman,)
has asked a question "by what rule we
have arrived at the number of representatives
indicated in the report." The question cannot
bemore satisfactorily answered, than by again
reading the report.
"Every county having a population of less
than 15,000 shall be entitled to three delegates;
every county having a population of $15,000 and
less than 25,000, shall be entitled to four dele-
gates; every county having 25,000 and less than
35,000, to five, and every county having more
than 35,000, to six; and Baltimore city the same
number as the largest county."
The gentleman's question, he hoped, was answered
fully. But the gentleman had gone far
beyond asking a question. Indeed, his question
seemed to have been put, not at all because he
did not comprehend the rule suggested by the re-
port, but merely as a prelude to an assault upon
it. It was certainly a very unusual course when
a report on an important measure was made, at
the instant of its presentation, before it was
printed, or inpossession of the House, to com-
mence an attack upon it. The same gentleman
had some time since gratuitously assumed the
task of protecting the rights and interests of the
slave-holding portions of the State, had volun-
teered and earnestly pressed a measure designed
to manifest a very warm feeling toward this in-
terest. This was the first instance in which the
rights of the slaveholder, as such, had since then
been presented to the consideration of the House,