upon the counties under any circumstances what-
ever. Their right to political existence and
equal representation, was reserved to each, and
whenever it is changed, modified or abolished, it
must be done by their own free consent, or ac-
quiesance. Under this agreement they entered
into the compact of government in 1776, and
have remained until this day. But some of them
have suffered by their rights being impaired by a
change made in the Constitution in 1836, in which
they have acquisced.
Mr. McMahon, in his history of Maryland, in
speaking of the system of representation adopted
in the Constitution of 1776, says:
"With reference to the several counties of the
State, the principle of our present system of repre-
sentation in the House of Delegates, is perfect
equality, because of distinct county interest,
without regard to difference in territory or popu-
lation."
And again he says: "This system imparts to
the State the character of a confederacy of coun-
ties, and unless so regarded, it has no governing
principle."
And again he says, when speaking of this pro-
bable permanency. "There is, however, one alter-
ation of it, relating only to the representation of
the city of Baltimore, which, it is believed, the
justice and magnanimity of the State will yet
accord to her. This proposes merely to increase
the number other delegates to four, so as to place
her on an equality with the counties. It received
the sanction of the Legislature at the session of
1824, but was not confirmed as the Constitution
requires, at the ensuing session, * * *
On that occasion it was resisted, not so much
on account of its immediate objects and effects
in raising the representation of Baltimore to an
equality with that of the several counties, as for
its supposed tendency to extend the hand of innovation
to the whole system, and to strengthen her claims
for a farther increase. Without regarding it as
the beginning of innovation, it was difficult to
find an argument of justice or expediency, upon
which the bill could be resisted By the very
grant of a partial representation, this city is ad-
mitted as a distinct member of the quasi-confederacy,
having distinct interest" &c.
And now, Mr. President, after having examin-
ed into the history of this State thoroughly, only
a small portion of which I have found it conve-
nient to cite as authority, but leaving an abun-
dance still behind, I have come to the conclusion,
that the present government is constituted of a
confederacy of counties, each one being a party
to the compact, and that each county has yet re-
served rights, among which is the right to politi-
cal existence and individuality.
FRIDAY, March 7,1851.
The Convention met at ten o'clock.
Prayer was made by the Rev, Mr. GRAUFF.
The roll was called, and a quorum being pres-
56 |
ent, the journal of yesterday was lead and approved.
Mr. JOHN NEWCOMER presented a petition of
sundry citizens of Washington county, praying
that a provision may be made in the new Consti-
tution, that the privilege to sell intoxicating li-
quor shall not be granted to any person in any
part of the State, except the same shall first be
sanctioned or approved of by a majority of the
votes in the district where the same is to be sold.
Which was read, and
Referred to the select committee already ap-
pointed on that subject.
HOWARD COUNTY.
Mr. DORSEY rose and asked the Convention at
this time to take up and consider the report here-
tofore presented by him, in relation to making
Howard District a county. He did not intend
himself to discuss it, he said, and he had no reason
to suppose that it would occupy more than a few
minutes of the time of the Convention.
Mr. BROWN suggested that the unfinished busi-
ness of the morning hour of yesterday, would
come up to-day as a matter of course.
The PRESIDENT replied, that the unfinished
business of the morning hour would come up as
a matter of courge; but that it might be postponed
by the vote of a majority of the Convention.
Mr. DORSEY said, the report would probably
not occupy more than five minutes.
Mr. BROWN replied, that it was probable that
the unfinished business could be disposed of in
the same length of time. He hoped that the
Convention would dispose of that in the first in-
stance.
The PRESIDENT inquired, whether the gentle-
man from Anne Arundel, (Mr. Dorsey,) persist-
ed in his motion,
Mr. DORSEY. I should like to have the sense
of the Convention upon it. And he made the
motion accordingly.
Mr. PRESTMAN intimated his opinion that the
report would lead to discussion.
Some conversation followed on a point of or-
of order.
Mr. DORSEY asked the yeas and nays on his
motion, which were ordered, and being taken,
resulted as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't., Blakis-
tone, Dent, Hopewell, Chambers of Kent, Mitch-
ell, Donaldson, Dorsey, Wells, Randall, Kent,
Sellman, Weems, Dalrymple, Sollers, Bell,
Ridgely, Crisfield, Dashiell, Hicks, Hodson,
Goldsborough, Eccleston, Sprigg. McCubbin,
Bowling, Grason, McMaster, Fiery, John New-
comer, and Davis—33.
Negative—Messrs. Ricaud, Lee, Lloyd, Col-
ston, Chambers of Cecil, McCullough, Miller,
Spencer, George, Fooks, Thomas, Shriver, Gaither,
Biser, Annan, Sappington, Stephenson, Ma-
graw, Thawley, Hardcastle, Gwinn. Sherwood
of Baltimore city, Presstman, Ware, Schley,
Neill, Michael Newcomer, Weber, Hollyday,
Slicer, Parke, Ege, Cockey, and Brown—33.
So the Convention determined to proceed to
the consideration of the said report.
The report was read as follows: |
