leaving the slave holding counties in a minority
by the first plan by five, on the second plan by
eleven; whilst that of Judge CHAMBERS would
give a majority of four members to the counties
most interested.
Mr. BROWN, of Carroll, interrupting. Will
the gentleman tell me what he means by non-
slaveholding counties ?
Mr. JENIFER said he considered the eight coun-
ties composed of Allegany, Baltimore, Carroll,
Frederick, Washington, Harford and Cecil, least
interested, and yet two of the propositions, one
which the gentleman from Carroll had supported,
gave those eight counties, with the city of Balti-
more, a majority of eleven in the House of Dele-
gates over the thirteen other and more interested
counties,
Mi. J. said he did not doubt the gentleman's
soundness upon that subject, nor would he ques-
tion that of any member on this floor. But this
Constitution, if ratified, should last for many
years, perhaps for ages, for he had no doubt that
by this time the people of Maryland were hear-
tily sick of Conventions to frame new Constitu-
tions. We do not know who may come alter us
and what may be the materials of which the
Legislature may hereafter be composed. It is
said that the Senate will be a sufficient guaran-
tee. That is but a slight barrier, if the doctrines
prevails that a bare majority of the people may,
at anytime, change, alter or abolish the existing
Constitution, without the forms of law. Let
there then he no doubt upon this question. Let
the counties most interested have at least an equal
representation in the protection of their property
With that view, (Mr J. said,) he would propose
to amend the bill, [Mr. Dorsey's,] now under
consideration, by adding one representative to
each of the smaller counties having but two, to
wit: Caroline, Calvert Kent. This would make
the House of Delegates eighty-six in number.
and still leave a majority of two in favor of the
Western counties and the city of Baltimore.
Mr. J. said he had indicated his preference for
the bill reported by Mr. CHAMBERS, which he
believed would be mure acceptable to his con-
stituents than any other proposed, but as that
had been defeated, and he saw no prospect of its
successful revival, he would take as the basis,
the proposition of the gentleman from Washing
ton, [Mr. Fiery,] which had been rejected by
only one vote; provided the amendment which
he, Mr. J., offered when it was under consider
ation, should be adopted; which was to add one
member to each of the small counties, having
but two in that bill. This would make the
whole number of the House of Delegates 82; in-
stead of 73, and place the small counties on the
same footing, by giving to each of these coun-
ties three delegates. By this the thirteen counties
would have an aggregate vote of 40, and the
western counties and city of Baltimore of 42;
nearly equally balanced. If those gentlemen
who are in favor of the original proposition of
Mr, FIERY, and will not accept this, or some
other similar one, let them look to the conse-
quences; let them sacrifice the interests of the |
smaller counties, and let the members of this
Convention from the smaller counties, thus sac-
rificed, take the responsibility. Mr. J. said his
attention had also been called to the two divis-
ions of the State—the Western and Eastern
Shore.
By Judge DORSEY'S plan, the Eastern Shore
would have 23 delegates of 83.
If amended as proposed, 25 delegates of 86.
Mr. FIERY'S plan, 20 delegates of 73.
By the proposed amendment, 24 delegates of
82.
Judge CHAMBERS' plan. 28 delegates of 86; by
adding 4 to Baltimore city—90.
Mr. J. said. either of these propositions so
amended, would place the several sections of
the State upon a more equal ground, for it seem-
ed to be conceded that Baltimore city should
have ten delegates—a large majority of the Con-
vention having at different times so voted. He
himself was in favor of giving to Baltimore as
many representatives as a proper discharge of
her legislative duties required, and for that pur-
pose ten had been considered sufficient, even by
some other own citizens.
Give her as large a number as some of her ill-
judged friends require, and her influence will be
lost in the Legislature, except in the mere act of
voting This is admitted by some of her most
interested and intelligent citizens Mr J. asked
when has she ever failed to carry in the legisla-
ture any measure for the benefit of Baltimore,
even to the prejudice of the counties? When
did an act of the Legislature pass, not acceptable
to Baltimore city, in which the counties did not
share the disadvantages, if any, except the regis-
try law of 1838. That, he had always considered
invidious, if not unconstitutional,
But how many acts have passed which gave a
direct benefit to Baltimore, to the injury of some
of the counties especially those of the lower Chesa-
peake and Potomac, and at a time when the city
of Baltimore had but two or four members in
the House of Delegates.
Her friends claim for her that she pays a large
proportion of the taxes into the State Treasury.
True. she does, but who derives the benefit of
the objects fir which those taxes are incurred ?
It was for works of improvement, in all of which
Baltimore city took the leading stand, and the
benefit which accrues, enures almost exclusively
to Baltimore. So far from those works of internal
improvement being advantageous to three-
fourths of the counties, they are a direct disadvantage.
What advantage do the counties of
the eastern shore, on the Chesapeake and Potomac
tide water counties derive from those works
of internal improvement? None, none whatever,
compared to the constant drain from taxes
and otherwise, which will have been inflicted on
them for more than a quarter if not half a centu-
ry. There never has been a period, in the histo-
ry of Maryland, since the days of the revolution,
when the eastern shore and lower counties of
the western shore have evinced more forbear-
ance, more public spirit, more patriotism than |
