clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Proceedings and Debates of the 1850 Constitutional Convention
Volume 101, Volume 2, Debates 184   View pdf image
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space
184
fered by the gentleman from Washington coun-
ty, gave to Baltimore one-seventh of the whole
number; and to the smaller counties but two-
while this proposition gives less than one-eighth
and the smaller counties three delegates each.
Where is the man, who desires a compromise at
all, who will stickle upon the ninth part of a hair?
Already two-thirds of this House, have voted to
give Baltimore ten delegates. Two-thirds have
already voted in favor of every general principle
entertained in this proposition. It stands now,
"solitary and alone," unconnected with any other.
It does justice to the lower counties of the State,
giving Baltimore the number of delegates upon
which alone can there be a compromise, and
giving Frederick, Washington, Allegany and
Baltimore counties what they are willing to com-
promise upon. Carroll, Prince George's, Dor-
chester, and Anne Arundel counties, stand inter-
mediately between the higher and the lower.
They very nearly approximate to what is propo-
sed for them in other schemes, if you propose
to bring up to above three representatives any
one of the smaller counties, they should all be
brought up together. They are all agricultural
counties and have a common interest; and let us
not by making adistinction between them, assert
in effect that they are of different interests. For
one, if it is proposed to give Charles county a
greater number of delegates for the purpose of
obtaining her vote, I shall not accept it. Nor
would I accept the same for Calvert or Caroline.
I do not believe such a proposition would bejust
to the other smaller counties.
Baltimore city has interests different from the
counties; the western large counties have different
interests from the smaller upon the Chesapeake
and Potomac; but not antagonisticcal. Adopt
the proposed amendment and no injustice will be
done to any.
[Here the hammer fell, and Mr. J. resumed
his seat.]
Mr. CRISFIELD moved to amend the substitute,
by adding "one additional member to the coun-
ties of Dorchester, Somerset, Prince George's,
Worcester and Carroll."
Mr. SHRIVER moved the question be taken by
yeas and Days, and being ordered, appeared as
follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't., Morgan,
Blakistone, Hopewell, Ricaud, Lee, Chambers of
Kent, Mitchell, Dorsey, Wells, Kent, Weems,
Dalrymple, Bond, John Dennis, James U. Den-
nis, Crisfield, Hicks, Hodson, Eccleston, Phelps,
Bowie, Tuck, McCubbin, Bowling, Dirickson,
McMaster, Hearn, Fooks, Jacobs, Kilgour, and
Waters—S3.
Affirmative—Messrs. Donaldson, Randall, Sell-
man, Jenifer, Howard, Buchanan, Bell, Welch,
Lloyd, Colston, Constable, Chambers of Cecil,
Miller, McLane, Spencer, Grason, George,
Wright, Thomas, Shriver, Johnson, Gaither, Bi-
ser, Annan, Sappington, Stephenson, McHenry,
Magraw, Nelson, Carter, Thawley, Stewart of
Caroline, Hardcastle, Gwinn, of Brent of Balti-
more city. Ware, Fiery, Michael Newcomer,
Brewer, Anderson, Weber, Hollyday, Slicer,
Fitzpatrick, Smith, Parke, Shower, Cockey and
Brown—49.
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. DIRICKSON moved to amend the substitute,
by striking out "ten," in Baltimore city, and in-
serting six "
Mr. MORGAN asked for a division of the ques-
tion, and it was first stated upon striking out,
Mr. DIRICKSON demanded the yeas and nays,
which were ordered, and being taken, resulted
as follows:
Affirmative — Messrs. Chapman, President,
Blakistone, Morgan, Hopewell, Lee, Chambers
of Kent, Mitchell, Wells, Randall, Kent, Weems,
Dalrymple, Bond, John Dennis, James U. Dennis,
Crisfield, Hicks, Hodson, Eccleston, Phelps,
Bowie, Tuck, McCubbin, Bowling, Dirickson,
McMaster, Hearn, Fooks, Jacobs, Sappington,
Stephenson, Fiery, Kilgour and Waters—34.
Negative.—Messrs. Ricaud, Donaldson, Dor-
sey, Sellman, Jenifer, Howard, Buchanan, Bell,
Welch, Lloyd, Colston, Constable, Chambers
of Cecil, Miller, McLane, Spencer, Grason,
George, Wright, Thomas, Shriver. Johnson,
Gaither, Biser, McHenry, Magraw, Nelson, Ca-
ter, Thawley, Stewart, of Caroline, Hardcastle,
Gwinn. Brent, of Baltimore city, Ware, Michael
Newcomer, Brewer, Anderson, Weber, Holly-
day, Slicer, Fitzpatrick, Smith, Parke, Shower,
Cockey and Brown—46,
So the Convention refused to strike out.
Mr. CARTER then offered as a substitute for the
substitute offered by Mr. JENIFER, and the amend-
ment offered by Mr. JOHNSON, the following:
Basis 10,000 gross, one delegate, and one ad-
ditional delegate to each county and city of Baltimore
for territory, and no Iraction less than
two-thirds of said basis, to be entitled to an ad-
ditional delegate, until the number of sixty-five
be obtained, after which one delegate for every
25,000.
Counties. Gross Popul'n. No. of Del.
Allegany - - - 22,779 3
Anne Arundel - - 20,000 3
Howard ---12,388 2
Baltimore city - 169,054 10
Carroll - - -- 20,615 3
Baltimore county 41,599 5
Caroline - - - 9,692 2
Calvert - --- 7,646 2
Cecil ----- 18,937 3
Charles - - - - 16,962 3
Dorchester - - 18,872 3
Frederick - - - 40,983 5
Harford - - - 19,358 3
Kent - --- 11,388 2
Montgomery - - 15,860 2
Prince George's - 21,550 3
Queen Anne's - - 14,484 2
St. Mary's - - 13,698 2
Somerset - - - 22,460 3
Talbot - - - 13,811 2
Washington - - 30,830 4
Worcester - - -18,847 3
Total - - - - 70


 
clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Proceedings and Debates of the 1850 Constitutional Convention
Volume 101, Volume 2, Debates 184   View pdf image
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  October 06, 2023
Maryland State Archives