that court, and the recognition of the same feature
in the law of 1844.
How was this odious, unjust, and oppressive
example and action of Frederick county met?
How was it answered? First, by the gentleman
from Queen Anne, (Mr. SPENCER,) who said
that it was a whig measure introduced to de-
prive Mr. Grason, the then Governor of Mary-
land, of the patronage of Frederick county, and
—Secondly, by Mr. BISER, who declared that be
opposed the measure, and introduced a hill to
elect the levy court, by general ticket; but Mr.
Schley, being a whig, and a majority of the
Legislature being whigs, he defeated him, and carried
this measure through the Legislature against
his vote and against his wishes. Now he, (Mr.
D.) did not say a word about this being a whig
measure, or ademocratic measure. He alluded
to it as a reform measure of the county of Frederick,
and mentioned the names of three gentle-
men, members of this Convention, who were
then members of the Legislature, without classing
them as either whigs or democrats, it so
happened that two of them were whigs, and one
a democrat. Now, to weaken the force of this
conservative example of Frederick county, who
has given us a valuable precedent for the very
measure under consideration, it is to be denoun-
ced as a whig measure, and party feeling is
to be invoked to lessen its influence here, because
it is a whig measure—upon no other principal
than the unjust and illiberal principal, "that
nothing good can come out of Nazareth."
But now stands the case with the honorable
member from Frederick, (Mr. BISER.) By look-
ing further into the history of this matter, it appears
that in 1842, the honorable gentleman was
elected Speaker of the House of delegates— it is
to be presumed not by whig votes—that at that
session the democrats being in a majority, a bill
was introduced, by a Mr. Crampton of Frederick,
to change the number of levy court districts, from
three to nine. Was Mr. Crampton a whig ?
Mr. BISER. Mr. Crampton was a democrat.
Mr. DAVIS. Very well. That in this bill in-
troduced by a democrat, this same restriction of
a residence within the levy court district was retained,
but reduced from six months to sixty
days, a more reasonable time ;and a further re-
striction of six month a residence within the dis-
trict, to render a. person elected eligible to the
levy court.
Mr. Biser. Did this bill become a law ?
Mr. DAVIS replied in the affirmative. He held
the laws of 1842 in his hand, and found this bill
published as a suppliment to the act of 1838.
Mr. BISER. Did I vote for it ?
'Mr. DAVIS would answer the gentleman. It
does not appear from the Journal of the House of
Delegates, that the ayes and noes were called
upon the passage of the bill, but he took it for
granted that two such experienced, and astute
members, as the gentleman from Frederick, and
the gentleman from Carroll, (Mr. BROWN,) who
was also a member of that session of the Legislature,
would never have suffered so odious, oppressive
and unjust a restriction, as a much shorter
period of residence is now pronounced to be |
without calling the ayes and noes, to record their
names against it, unless they were willing for its
passage.
Mr. BISER. How could I have called the ayes
and noes, when I was Speaker of the House?
Mr. DAVIS. It would have been very easy for
the gentleman when he saw so obnoxous a measure,
as he now considers this to be, about to pass,
to have requested some friend to call the ayes
and noes, that he might record his name against
it. But, he asked, did the gentleman vote
against it ?
Mr. BISER replied in the affirmative.
Mr. DAVIS continued. Well, so this bill passed
with these now obnoxous and odious features
In it, and so it continued the law for Frederick
county till 1844, When the whigs being again in
power they altered the law so as to reduce the
number of districts for the levy court to five, but
so pleased were they with the new feature of re-
restriction introduced by the democrats in 1843,
that they incorporated it in the bill of 1844, and
so it stands the law of Frederick county, the
great reform county of the State now. He held
it up as an example, from the hotbed of reform,
worthy the consideration and imitation of this
Committee, and if he possessed the tact and par-
liamentary skill and knowledge of the gentleman
from Carroll, (Mr. BROWN,)—not now in his
seat—and knew how to accomplish it, he would
move the conservative Democratic restriction of
sixty days, as a substitute for the small restric-
tion of five days new under consideration.
He deprecated the introduction of party feeling
or party action, Into this debate, or this Convention.
It bodes no good to a harmonious result.
He was not here for any such purpose. He came
not here to elevate the whig party, or to procure
the downfal of the democratic party; but for
higher and nobler objects. He came here to
tend his feeble efforts to the formation of a Constitution
for the State of Maryland which will
survive the rise and downfal of parties. He
was a whig, and known to be a whig. Yet, he
should feel himself unworthy the name of whig,
if he did not feel that he could so far elevate
himself above party feeling, and party action, as
to act alone for the honor, the welfare, and pros-
perity of the whole State, irrespective of party.
Mr. RANDALL indicated his intention at the
proper time to offer the following provision, which
would, he thought, meet with the views of many
gentlemen who were opposed to further restric-
tion upon the privileges of voters.
" Every free white male citizen of this State,
and no other, above the age of twenty-one
years, having resided twelve months as a citizen
thereof in the county next preceding the election
at which he offers to vote," &c., &c.
The amendment having been read,
Mr. R. remarked, that he wished to say a few
words in regard to the universally admitted
frauds which were practised upon the ballot box
in the State of Maryland. He said, universally,
but, perhaps, the more correct term would be,
generally, because some gentlemen desired that
their counties should be excluded from the |
