The question being on agreeing to the amendment,
Mr. BLAKISTONE demanded the yeas and nays,
which were ordered, and being taken, resulted
as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't , Blakis-
tone, Dent Hopewell, Lee, Chambers of Kent,
Mitchell, Dorsey, Wells, Kent, Weems, Dalrym-
ple, Bond, Sollers, Brent of Charles, John Dennis,
James U. Dennis, Williams, Hicks, Golds-
borough, Phelps, Bowie, Sprigg, McCubbin, Dir-
ickson, McMaster, Hearn, Fooks, Jacobs, Kilgour,
and Waters—31.
Negative--Messrs. Morgan. Ricaud, Donald-
son, Sellman, Merrick, Jenifer, Howard, Bu-
chanan, Bell, Welch, Chandler, Ridgely, Lloyd,
Colston, Crisfield, Eccleston, Constable, Cham-
bers of Cecil. Miller, McLane, Tuck, Bowling,
Spencer, Grason, George, Wright, Thomas,
Shriver, Johnson, Gaither, Biser, Annan, Sap-
pington, Stephenson, McHenry, Magraw, Nelson,
Thawley, Stewart of Caroline, Hardcastle,
Gwinn, Stewart of Baltimore city, Brent of Bal-
timore city, Sherwood of Baltimore city, Presst-
man, Ware, Fiery, John Newcomer, Harbine,
Michael Newcomer, Brewer, Anderson, Weber,
Hollyday, Slicer, Fitzpatrick, Smith, Parke,
Shower, Cockey, and Brown—61.
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. TUCK rose to offer an amendment to the
proposition of the gentleman from Washington,
(Mr. Newcomer.) He proposed to amend that
proposition by increasing the number of delegates
for Baltimore city, from six to ten
He said that he moved this amendment be-
cause, from opinions expressed upon the floor,
and from what had been said here of conferences
and caucusses held outside of the Convention, he
believed there was a majority of that body who
were determined to give to the city of Baltimore
ten delegates. He was free to say, that ten del-
egates from that city was not the proposition
which he preferred; but if a majority had deter-
mined to enlarge that delegation to ten, he deem-
ed it his duty, to place the measure, in all other
respects, in a form most acceptable to himself as
between that and the proposition of Mr. FIERY,
next to come up, which he feared an organized
majority had determined to pass. Mr. FIERY'S
proposition, (and the Convention would excuse
him for mentioning the gentleman by name, as it
was the only way in which he could distinguish
them,) proposed to give seventy-three members
to the House of Delegates,
if their should increase the delegation from
the city of Baltimore to ten, by so amending the
proposition of Mr. JOHN NEWCOMER, they would
make the number of the House of Delegates 71.
Now the difference was this. By Mr. FIERY'S
proposition, Allegany would have four delegates
and Washington five; by Mr NEWCOMER'S, Al-
legany would have three, and Washington four,
so that the section from which he, (Mr F.) came
would have the advantage of this difference. It
commended itself very strongly to Mr. T. for an-
other reason it is based on whole numbers, in-
stead of federal numbers—the basis of Mr. |
FIERY'S—a very important point as far is the
principle is involved.
Mr. T. felt called upon to say that the proposi-
tion of Mr FIERY was unjust to his section, and
especially to Prince George's. There are only
three counties that pay a larger amount of State tax
than Prince George's, to wit: Baltimore, Frede-
rick and Washington. The assessment in Prince
George's is upwards of $9.000.000, that in Wash-
ington $11,000,000, and that in Allegany up-
wards of $3,000,000. We pay nearly three times
as much tax as Allegany, and almost as much as
Washington, yet it is proposed to give Washing-
ton five members, Allegany four, and Prince
George's three, thus reducing the latter county
to a number not larger than several counties
which pay not half as much tax. He could not
but consider this arrangement as unjust, especial-
ly in view of the fact that these and other west-
ern counties, are deriving benefits from the
public works which in all probability will never
profit the lower counties.
He had not lime, under the five minutes restriction,
to go further into the subject. He
wished it to go to his constituents that he offered
this amendment to avoid a greater evil. which
he considered inevitable. The majority is against
the lower section of the State, and of the two
propositions presented, he deemed it to be his
duty to select the one least injurious to, his con-
stituents.
Mr. CHAMBERS stated that if this proposition
failed, he should propose the number of delegates
from the city to be eight.
The PRESIDENT ruled debate out of order.
Mr. TUCK would withdraw his proposition to
enable the gentleman from Kent to submit his.
Mr. CHAMBERS then moved to amend the
amendment of the gentleman from Washington,
(Mr, Newcomer,) by striking out these words,
"the same number of delegates as the county
which shall be entitled to the largest representa-
tion," and insert in lieu thereof ''eight." The
scheme of the gentleman from Washington,
would thereby remain unaltered in all respects,
except by an increase of two to Baltimore city.
He moved this although most decidedly in op-
position to what he believed the best scheme, be-
cause he feared the Washington county proposi-
tion could not be carried without it, and that was
the best scheme which the small counties had any
chance to secure. Of course, in a choice of evils,
they must take the least. He asked the yeas and
nays on his amendment.
The yeas and nays were ordered,
And being taken, were as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Chapman, President,
Blakistone, Ricaud, Chambers of Kent, Mitch,
ell, Dorsey, Sollers Brent of Charles, Merrick,
Tuck, Bowling, Hardcastle, Fiery and John New-
comer— 14.
Negative—Messrs. Morgan, Dent, Hopewell,
Lee, Donaldson, Wells, Randall. Kent, Sellman,
Weems, Dalrymple, Bund, Jenifer. Howard,
Buchanan, Bell, Welch, Chandler, Ridgely,
Lloyd, Colston, John Dennis, James U. Dennis,
Crisfield, Williams, Hicks, Goldsborough, Ec- |
