the gentleman stood there, not as a representative
of the whole of Baltimore, but for that of the
party alone. The gentleman expressly used the
language that he would not withhold the patro-
nage, but would hold on to it, as "the club of
Hercules," to carry out the principles of the
Democratic party.
Mr. J, again read:
"The overthrow and organization of the entire
Judiciary system, to take effect so soon as prac-
ticable."
This was the programme of the distinguished
Attorney General's constitutional reform; but
not to take effect until he found a majority of
his Democratic friends—not naturalized friends
in the Legislature. They were to be considered
first at the ballot box, secondary in the benefit
to accrue from it.
Mr. J. said he would make no excuse for be-
stowing so much attention on the learned Attor-
ney General. He was the highest officer, and lie
believed the only one in the Convention, who
had received an appointment under the present
Executive) except, perhaps, some military ti-
tles.
He had been the most active, if not the most
influential, in the Gubernatorial canvass, and had
well earned the laurels he was so justly enti-
tled to.
In conclusion, Mr. J. said he would vote for
the proposition of the gentleman from Kent [Mr.
Chambers,] with the amendment proposed.—
That defeated, he would go for the one of the
gentleman of Washington, (Mr. Fiery) by bring-
ing up the smaller counties to three) which would
make the whole number in the House of Dele-
gates eighty-two. The same as under the pres-
ent Constitution. That, he considered as fair
and satisfactory an apportionment as could be
adopted. With that he would be content, and so
he believed would be a majority of the people,
because it gave no undue advantage to, or com-
promitted the interests of, any section of the
State. In doing which, he should not look to
the predominance of either party in the Leg-
islature.
Mr. BROWN wished to vindicate himself against
some of the imputations cast upon him by the
gentleman from Somerset, (Mr. Crisfield.) Be-
tore he done that, he would say a few words in
reply to the gentleman from Montgomery, (Mr.
Kilgour.) He had been astonished that the com-
plaint with reference to taxation should have
come from a Potomac county. From the earli-
est of his recollection there had been a Potomac
interest, in securing a navigation up to the min-
eral region of Allegany. That Potomac interest
had been like an incubus which could not be
shaken off. The consequence had been that a
canal had been cut from Allegany to a point
without the limits of the State. Where was the
source of taxation? From the Chesapeake and
Ohio canal. No one would deny it. It had en-
tered into history, and was indeliably stamped
upon the minds and pockets of every man in
Maryland, it seemed strange for the gentleman
from Montgomery to bring up that to operate
17 |
upon the making of a new Constitution. So
much in reference to the remark of the gentle-
man from Montgomery. He would now turn to
the gentleman from Somerset. If he had ever
heard a statesman play the lawyer, it was the
gentleman from Somerset, in his remarks upon
the statistics of the gentleman from Allegany.
He had not expected, however, that he should be
attacked and brought into the argument. The
great difference between the gentleman from
Somerset and himself, was this. He, (Mr, B.,)
held that the majority had a right to govern.
That gentleman denied it. He, (Mr. C,,) said
that the minority had a right to control, and that
they would be in great danger if the majority
had their own rights. It was the inherent right
of man to govern himself, which could only be
done by majorities.
The gentleman from Somerset had said, that
this was no compromise at all, because one party
yielded nothing. It was because they had noth-
ing to yield. To be sure the people voted uni-
tedly for Governor, but that was the result of
the compromise of 1836, in which he had been
not a leader but a holder-back. He held the
doctrine that the world of ideas could be divided
as well as the world of matter: and no man could
direct all the influences brought to bear upon
him, and deny the doctrine of representation ac-
cording to population, who was not an aristocrat
in his heart. It was as plain as any other doc-
trine.
The gentleman had said it could not be car-
ried out practically. He would admit that their
might be cases where circumstances would pro-
duce a deviation from that principle; but when
the principle was deviated from, it became a
mere rule—an arbitrary rule. Now what was
the question at issue? Under peculiar circum-
stances, the population had been transferred from
one portion of the State to another. Were not
the people of the West as free as those of the
East or the South. It was no compromise, it
was said, because they had yielded nothing.
They had yielded enough to disgrace them, for
they had yielded so far as to be governed by a
minority. He would ask whether the present
generation had not as much right to throw off
the yoke of the one-third government, as their
forefathers to throw off the yoke of the one man
power. The gentleman had taken two steps
backwards in his projet. Mr Jefferson, one of
the ablest statesmen in the land, had laid down
the principle that each generation had as good a
griht to govern itself, as the generation that pre-
ceded it. The great mistake was that the pro-
gressive change did not keep pace with the pro-
gressive improvement. it was for this. reason
that such frequent sconce of violence has been
witnessed in Europe. The Constitution, said
Mr. Jefferson, should be submitted to the people
at least once in twenty years. A new generation
would then be upon the stage, having as
good a right to frame their own Constitution as
that which had preceded them. It was not the
dead, but the living who had rights and interests
at state. The proposition of the gentleman |
