tion by a long argument. I merely wish to oc-
cupy a few moments in an attempt, in my rude
and feeble way, to adduce some reasons why I
do not think that this doctrine, which had been
so emphatically asserted, of the unqualified right
of majorities to rule, was not founded in truth.
But, in the mean time, I would ask why these
gentlemen desire this change? Had they any
complaint to make of the old system of repre-
sentation, other than that it was not ac-
cording to population? Had it worked evil for
Baltimore city or the upper part of Maryland?
No. Their prosperity had been built up by the
sweat of the brows of the people of lower Ma-
ryland—by their means and by their labor.—
By their liberality and generosity they have
largely contributed to the prosperity and in-
crease of Baltimore, and to reveal and make
available the hidden treasures of western Mary-
land And this is the return which is to be made
for that liberality If there was no other reason
than the injustice and ingratitude manifested by
it, they would be sufficient to induce me to oppose
this plan of representation to the utter-
most.
Why then, had this question been raised in
Maryland? Why the tremendous excitement
upon this subject alone? For I have learned
since I came here that there was no other ques-
tion than this by which a reformer was to be
tested. Every other species of reform had van-
ished like mist before the morning sun.
The whole subject of reform had been boiled
down into this single question of the basis of re-
presentation. If they had not suffered injury
under the old system; if they could not point
to a single instance in which they had been
wronged, or in which injustice had been done,
or their interest sacrificed by the Legislature—
why had this excitement been raised by there-
form party of the State?
We have been told that party spirit should
have nothing to do with our deliberations here;
that we should drive it from our midst as a de-
mon of discord. But if the plain unvarnished
truth were told (I mean no disrespect to any gen-
tleman,) party spirit would between to be the
beginning and the end of the whole question.—
This, sir, is a struggle for, party ascendancy.
Party is the prompter behind the scenes that directs
the movements of the actors.
It is this spirit which has actuated the reform
party heretofore—which actuates them now, and
which will actuate them until the Democratic
party gain the ascendancy in the State; and then
we shall hear no more of it. The troubled wa-
ters will become calm as an unruffled lake. Be-
lieving this, sir, as a Whig party man, I intend to
combat this thing.
If what I have said be true—that there are no
oppressive evils to remedy, or to get rid of, this
great reform could have taken its rise but from
one of two causes—a struggle for party ascendancy
or hostility to the institution of slavery,
which prevails in that part of our State from
which the power is to be taken.
Talk not to me of the abstract right of the ma- |
jority to rule ? This is not motive sufficient to
have caused all this excitement and trouble
Men are not so bound to, and governed by
abstractions. They are but the veils behind
which the real designs and feelings of men, in
their movements, are concealed; as, in the name
of liberty, many a damming deed is done. Gen-
tlemen of the reform party disavow any hostility
to slavery. All are pro-slavery men from the
top of the Alleganies to the Atlantic shore. This
is no reason then Therefore, we have but one
to fill back upon—party ascendancy.
Gentlemen had said, over and over again, that
representation according to population was the
true theory of republican government—but they
have not shown the principles upon which it
rests its claims to truth.
Every doctrine which cannot stand the test of
reason and analysis—which does not bear right
and justice upon its face—is untrue. Can this
theory stand such a test? Can these gentlemen,
who preach it so loudly and assert it so emphati-
cally, trust it to this test? Why shun debale
then—why close this matter up so soon without
giving us the benefit of the process of reasoning,
by which they have convinced themselves that it
is the true theory. They need not fear the expense
which the discussion would bring about,
it would be worth far more than it could possibly
cost, (and the people themselves would think
so,) to have the minds of the whole people of the
State satisfied in regard to this vital and important
question.
I hold, sir, and will attempt to five some reasons
for it, that the theory of the abstract right
of majorities to rule, does not rest upon a sound
basis—a basis of truth and justice. In the first
place, it is not true because it is impracticable.
In the practical operation and working of government,
it is impossible for this principle, though
recognised in its Constitution, to be carried out.
Any thing that is impracticable is untrue. Any
thing that cannot stand the test of practical application,
wants that. element of truth which
alone renders it valuable, Truth, in its majesty.
and beauty, in its teachings of right and justice,
is simple, not complicated not involved in specious
dogmas that, while they proclaim right
and justice as the elements of their being, work
out the grossest wrong and injustice. Truth is a
unit—one part cannot be separated from another.
Any thing proclaimed as a truth, existing in the
nature of things, must stand or fall as a whole.
Will any gentleman say that this theory, as a
whole, can possibly be practically applied? Was
it ever carried out in the history of any government,
however democratic or republican it professed
to be. If it ever has, I should like to have
the instance pointed out.. It never has been
since the creation of the world.:
We all acknowledge the government of the
United States to be a free republican government.
We sing hallelujahs to the glory of its institutions.
From every mountain top, and every
valley of our blessed country, praises and thanksgivings
to God were raised by the people for
having had their lot cast in such a land, under
such glorious institutions. Gentlemen would |
