Yeas 26, nays 54, as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Morgan, Blakistone, Dent,
Hopewell, Chambers, of Kent, Dorsey, Kent,
Weems, Dalrymple, Bond, Sollers, Brent of
Charles, John Dennis, James U. Dennis, Wil-
liams, Hicks, Goldsborough, Phelps, Bowie,
Sprigg, McCubbin, Dirickson, McMaster, Fooks,
Jacobs, Kilgour, and Waters—26
Negative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't, Ricaud,
Lee, Mitchell, Donaldson, Randall, Jenifer, How-
ard, Buchanan, Bell. Welch, Chandler, Ridgely,
Lloyd, Colston, Crisfield, Eccleston, Chambers of
Cecil, Miller, McLane, Tuck, Spencer, Grason,
George, Wright, Thomas, Shriver, Gaither, Bi-
ser, Annan, Sappington, Stephenson, McHenry,
Magraw, Nelson, Thawley, Stewart of Caroline,
Hardcastle, Gwinn, Stewart, of Baltimore city,
Brent, of Baltimore city, Sherwood, of Baltimore
city, Presstman, Ware, Fiery, John Newcomer,
Harbine, Michael Newcomer, Brewer, Anderson,
Hollyday, Slicer, Fitzpatrick, Parke, Shower,
Cockey and Brown—54.
So the amendment was rejected.
The question recurring on the amendment
of Mr. JENIFER moved as a substitute to the pro-
position of Mr, JOHNSON.
Mr. JENIFER appealed to the Convention to al-
low the question to be taken to-day, as the Con-
vention was so much more full than it would
perhaps again be during the session.
Mr. BROWN moved to amend the amendment
offered by Mr. JOHNSON, by striking out in the
fourteenth line "six thousand," and inserting in
lieu thereof "five thousand seven hundred and
fifty."
Mr. BROWN said, that the proposition of the
gentleman from Frederick would work out the
following result: Frederick county had 40,983
inhabitants, and by the projet of the gentleman,
should get seven delegates; Carroll county had
20,615—more than half the population of Freder-
ick county—and would get but three delegates.
Baltimore county had 41,549, scarcely more than
double the population of Carroll, and would get
seven delegates. Any rule which would work
out such results was not a fair one. His propo-
sition was to alter the ratio of representation so
that Carroll should get four delegates. It would
only increase the aggregate amount by one single
delegate. He considered this as just and fair.
He had no objection to any other feature of the
proposition. If Baltimore and Frederick coun-
ties were confined to six representatives each, he
he should have no objection to allowing Carroll
but three; but if they had seven, Carroll should
have four.
Mr. TUCK. rose to make a motion which he
hoped would meet the approbation of the Con-
vention. It was apparent that the subject before
that body was one of very great difficulty, and
after ten days discussion and voting we have
come to no result. We have been told that caucusses
and conferences have been held out of the
hall for the purpose of arranging this question. |
He did not approve of that mode of doing busi-
ness of this kind. But it had been done by those
members of the Convention calling themselves
Reformers It is admitted by them that after
various efforts they have not been able to agree
upon a plan—and the votes show that the Con-
vention widely differ. We are not likely to
agree with much unanimity unless there be a
better feeling between the different sections of
State.
Mr T. would move for the appointment of a
committee of twenty-one—of one from each
county, to whom this subject shall be referred.
He hoped that a committee of gentlemen of mod-
erate and conservative views might be found,
who could agree upon some plan of representa-
tion that would commend itself to a large majori-
ty of the body. Mr. T. had always hoped that
some arrangement might be made on which a
large majority could unite—and that this grave
and momentous subject would not be settled by
out-of-door management, and caucus obligations.
Such a mode of settlement could not commend
the Constitution to the people who are to pass
upon our work. It seems that. a compromise is
to be made. A compromise of what? He was
sorry that word had been used. it implied a con-
flict of opinion if not of interest between the
different sections of the State. Federal numbers
have been presented as the basis of a compro-
mise. He did not think that any gentleman from
the lower counties would vote for any plan on
that basis except those from Queen Anne's, Car-
oline, and Talbot, all of whom had so voted be-
fore. It is not a compromise of the political
power of the different sections—but a compro-
mise between the upper counties and the lower
on this subject of slavery. We are to meet the
question as presented in that form. Let us then
have a committee representing every county, and
consequently all sections of the State. Let us
have no more reform or other caucusses; but at-
tempt an adjustment of the question upon some
basis that will protect all sections—and all inter-
ests in the State. He moved a committee to be
appointed by the President of one member from
each county and the city of Baltimore,
Mr. JOHNSON suggested that in a committee of
so much importance, without meaning any dis-
courtesy to the President, who was so just and
impartial, it seemed to be best to have the com-
mittee elected by Convention themselves.
Mr, TUCK withdrew the motion for the pre-
sent.
Mr. BUCHANAN moved that the Convention
adjourn,
Mr. BRENT demanded the yeas and nays,
which were ordered, and being taken, resulted—
yeas, 44; nays, 44. So the motion to adjourn did
not prevail.
The question recurring upon the amendment
of Mr. BROWN, to the proposition of Mr. JOHN-
SON.
Mr. BROWN demanded the yeas and nays, |
