tion to the same extent from taxation. But here
within our State there is no such compensation,
or equivalent exemption proposed not contem-
plated-on the contrary all our slaves and heavi-
ly taxed for the support of the State Govern-
ment while the labor of other portions of the
State is untaxed, and still you propose to deny us
representation according to the whole number of
our people, excluding from the estimate a por-
tion of our slaves. Again, sir, though it may be
truly said the slaves are an inferior and subordi-
nate race-it certainly cannot be said that they
are in any sense an inferior or less useful and val-
uable class of people in this State, than the free
negroes-on the contrary no one here will deny
the inferiority and greatly more pernicious char-
acter of our free negro population. These two
classes are nearly equal in number in our State, but
mostly congregated in different quarters; there,
the free negroes, are totally exempt from taxa-
tion on their person-property they have none-
and you enumerate the whole of them, and
estimate them equally with the best people of
the State in apportioning representation, while
you propose to exclude two-fifths of our
slaves. This must be seen to be most unfair
and unjust in itself and in its effect and operation
upon the different portions of the State. The
amendment he had offered, proposed that no
county in the State should have less than three
representatives, nor should any county or city
have more than ten. It was based upon gross
numbers, and a ratio of four thousand of each
representative. It would prove equal and just in
its operation, and he felt persuaded would give
satisfact on to all quarters of the State. He con-
cluded by demanding the yeas and nays upon the
amendment.
The yeas and nays were ordered, and being
taken, resulted as follows:
Affirmative-Messrs. Chapman, President, Mor-
gan, Blakistone, Dent, Hopewell, Ricaud, Lee,
Chambers of Kent, Mitchell, Dorsey, Randall,
Kent, Sellman, Weems, Dalrymple, Bond, Brent
of Charles, Merrick, Jenifer, John Dennis, James
U. Dennis, Crisfield, Williams, Hicks, Golds-
borough, Eccleston, Bowie, Tuck, Sprigg, Mc-
Cubbin, Bowling, Jacobs, Kilgour and Waters
-34.
Negative-Messrs. Donaldson, Wells, Howard,
Buchanan, Bell, Welch, Chandler, Ridgely,
Lloyd, Colston, Phelps, Constable, Chambers of
Cecil, Miller, McLane, Spencer, Grason, George,
Wright, Dirickson, McMaster, Hearn, Fooks,
Thomas, Shriver, Johnson, Gaither, Biser, An-
nan, Sappington, Stephenson, McHenry, Magraw,
Nelson, Thawley, Stewart of Caroline, Hardcas-
tle, Gwinn, Stewart of Baltimore city, Brent of
Baltimore city, Sherwood of Baltimore city,
Presstman, Ware, Fiery, John Newcomer, Har-
bine, Michael Newcomer, Brewer, Anderson,
Weber, Hollyday, Slicer, Fitzpatrick, Smith,
Parke, Shower, Cockey and Brown-58.
So the Convention refused to accept the sub-
stitute. |
Mr. GWINN moved to amend the amendment
of Mr. FIERY by adding at the end thereof the
following:
"And the said delegates shall be elected by
general ticket in each of said counties, and in the
city of Baltimore, and not by districts or wards."
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent, asked the yeas and
nays on agreeing to this amendment, which were
ordered, and being taken, were as follows :
Affirmative—Messrs. Blakistone, Dent, Sell-
man, Colston, Constable, Gwinn, Stewart of Bal-
timore city, Brent of Baltimore city, Sherwood
of Baltimore city, Presstman and Ware—11.
Negative—Messrs. Chapman. President, Mor-
gan, Hopewell, Ricaud, Lee, Chambers of Kent,
Mitchell, Donaldson, Dorsey, Wells, Randall,
Kent, Weems, Dalrymyle, Bond, Sollers, Brent
of Charles, Merrick, Jenifer, Howard, Buch-
anan, Bell, Welch, Chandler, Ridgely, Lloyd,
John Dennis, James U Dennis, Crisfield, Wil-
liams, Hicks, Goldsborough, Eccleston, Phelps,
Chambers of Cecil, Miller, McLane, Bowie, Tuck,
Sprigg, McCubbin, Bowling, Spencer, Grason,
George, Wright, Dirickson, McMaster, Hearn,
Fooks, Jacobs, Thomas, Shriver, Johnson, Gai-
ther, Biser, Annan, Sappington, Stephenson, Mc-
Henry, Magraw, Nelson, Thawley, Stewart of
Caroline, Hardcastle, Fiery, John Newcomer,
Harbine, Michael Newcomer, Kilgour, Brewer,
Waters, Anderson, Weber, Hollyday, Slicer,
Fitzpatrick, Smith, Parke, Shower, Cockey and
Brown—81.
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. MITCHELL. I rise to propose an amend-
ment, not that I will vote for it; but that it will
give me an opportunity, for a few moments, to
address the Convention, I move that the sec-
tion be so amended as to give to the city of Bal-
timore twenty-five representatives, Baltimore
county ten, Frederick county fifteen, and Wash-
ington county twenty-five. [Laughter.] The first
thing that I have to say, before I come to my
friends of the Eastern Shore, is to appeal to the
gentleman from Washington county. I find upon
looking on the records, that in 1790, Allegany
county had a population of but 4,809; while Kent
county had 12,838. We were then generous.
We gave them the same number of delegates that
we took for ourselves, although we had three
times the amount of population that they had. I
appeal to them as Whigs. Are they going to
give the State of Maryland to the Democrats?
I am as much a Reformer as any gentleman pre-
sent except on the question of representation.
What is the game that is played here ? You have
the whole State now. You can elect your Gov-
ernor by the foreign votes in the city of Balti-
more, and the best men in the United States are
cooped in the different wards, as I have been
credibly informed. [Laughter.] What do they
want now ? They have the "loaves," and they
want the "two fishes"—two Senators. I call
upon western Whigs to pause before they give
representation according to population, as it will
give the Slate to the Democratic party.
I have a few words to say to my friends from
Talbot, Caroline, and Queen Anne's. I call |
