But let the elections take place as they now do,
and those evils would never be corrected. And
why? Because those engaged in them are the
most efficient instruments of electioneering pol-
iticians, and a member of the House of Dele-
gates would neither propose or advocate meas-
ures, that suppose from necessity, to remedy the
existing evil, lest he might give offence to his
friends, and thereby lose the rioters, to which
perhaps he owed his elevation to the Legisla-
ture, and to which he might look for future
similar elevations.
He thought the whole State quite as deeply
interested in the city, as it is in the different coun-
ties of the State. He was as desirous to see Balti-
more prosper and attain the highest eminence
for population and wealth, as could be any mem-
ber of this Convention, not excepting the mem-
ber from Baltimore, and he anticipated that in
ten or fifteen years, its population would be more
than doubled.
But, at the same time, he wished to see the
legislature composed of such materials, as would
lead to such enactments as would foster and pro-
mote its prosperity, and preserve its peace and
good government.
He thought that districting the city would be
in a great degree, a remedy for the existing evils
that if that were done, the jealousies and con-
flicting interests between the city and counties,
would be measurably removed.
If all parts of the State properly represented
in the legislature, full and ample justice would be
done to all. For the reasons which he had as-
signed, he advocated this measure, and hoped it
would not be rejected without strong reasons be.
ing shewn therefor. And, he would say, there
was nothing at present that would induce him to
give Baltimore an increased representation,
without districting it.
If it was necessary that the counties should
vote as counties, it was equally necessary that
the wards or districting should vote in the same
manner. There was the same diversity of interests
in relation to both of them. It could not be
doubted, that under the present system much
fraud and illegal voting was practised, which
would be partially prevented by the amendment
he proposed. If it was necessary to establish the
district system in the counties, he would be will-
ing to go for it.
The large number he proposed to add to the
delegation from Baltimore city, was by way of
compromising and satisfying the people of the
city, that there was no design to take undue ad-
vantages of them, rather than from an expec-
tation that any good would result from it, either
to Baltimore or the rest of the State.
MONDAY, March 31,1851.
The Convention met at ten o'clock.
Prayer was made by the Rev. Mr. GRIFFITH,
The roll was called. |
The journal of yesterday was read and ap-
proved.
Mr. CONSTABLE presented several petitions
from sundry citizens of Cecil county, asking that
a provision be inserted in the Constitution, making
the sale of intoxicating liquors dependant on
the sanction of a majority of voters in the elec-
tion district.
Mr. GWINN presented a petition of sundry citi-
zens of the city of Baltimore of similar import.
Mr. SHERWOOD, of Baltimore city, also pre-
sented a petition of sundry citizens of the city of
Baltimore, of similar import, and
Mr. SHRIVER presented a petition of sixty citi-
zens of Catoctin district in Frederick county, ask-
ing that a clause be not inserted in the new Con-
stitution, restricting the sale of spirituous liquors,
but that the subject be referred to the Legisla-
ture.
Which were severally read, and
Referred to the select committee already ap-
pointed on that subject.
EVENING SESSIONS.
Mr. MICHAEL NEWCOMER submitted the fol-
lowing order:
Ordered, That from on after the first day of
April next, this Convention will meet every day
at nine o'clock, a. m., and sit until two o'clock,
p.m.; then take a recess until four o'clock,?,
m. when it will meet again for the transaction of
business.
Which was read.
Mr, STEPHENSON moved the question be taken
by yeas and nays.
On motion of Mr. WEEMS,
The Convention was called.
On motion of Mr. STEPHENSON,
Further proceedings under the call was dispensed
with.
The question then recurred upon the adoption
of the order.
Mr. SPENCER moved to lay said order on the
table.
Mr. STEPHENSON moved the question be taken
by yeas and nays, and being ordered appeared as
follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Morgan, Hopewell, Ri-
caud, Mitchell, Donaldson, Dorsey, Wells, Weems,
Dalrymple, Bond, Jenifer, Howard, Welch, Cris-
field, Hicks, Hodson. Phelps, Constable, Miller,
McLane, McCubbin, Bowling, Spencer, Grason,
George, Wright, Dirickson, Hearn, Fooks, John-
son, Sherwood of Baltimore city, Ware, Kil-
gour. Waters and Anderson—35.
Negative—Messrs. Blakistone, Dent, Lee, Sell-
man, Bell, Lloyd, Colston, John Dennis, James
U. Dennis, Eccleston, Chambers of Cecil, Bowie,
Tuck, McMaster, Jacobs, Thomas, Shriver, Gai-
ther, Biser, Sappington, Stephenson, McHenry,
Nelson, Thawley, Stewart of Caroline, Hard-
castle, Gwinn, Fiery, Michael Newcomer, Brew-
er, Weber, Hollyday, Slicer, Fitzpatrick, Smith,
Parke, Cockey, Shower and Brown—39 |
