voted here again and again, and almost every
member had presented some proposition. He
would like to see the sense of the Convention on
the pending proposition. He knew there was a
difficulty in the minds of many gentlemen on
the subject; some, he knew, would vote more
liberally fur Baltimore city if they thought that
the district system would prevail, whilst there
were others would also do so if every ten years
the question should be taken before the people
upon having another Convention. Every gentle-
man did not vote as if he had the whole pro-
gramme before him. He knew that there was
a difficulty in reference to the small counties, but
if some settled principle could be established re-
lative to them, there would not, he took it for
granted, be any trouble in regulating Baltimore
city.
Mr. SPENCER moved that the Convention ad-
journ.
Mr. SHRIVER moved for a division of the ques-
tion upon the first branch of said amendment,
down to the "proviso" in the 22d line,
Mr. STEPHENSON renewed the notice of his in-
tention to move a reconsideration of the amend-
ment offered by him on the 28th instant, and re-
jected by the Convention, as an amendment to
the 3d section.
Mr. THOMAS demanded the yeas and nays,
which were ordered and taken, and resulted as
follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't, Blakis-
tone, Hopewell, Lee, Chambers of Kent, Dorsey,
Wells, Kent, Sellman, Bund, Howard Buch-
anan, Bell, Welch, Colston, John Dennis, Crisfield,
Hicks, Hodson, Phelps, Chambers of Cecil,
Spencer, George, bright, Dirickson, McMaster,
Fooks, Jacobs, Biser, Sappington, Stephenson,
Nelson, Carter, Thawley, Gwinn, Brent of Baltimore
city, Sherwood of Baltimore city, Ware,
Kilgour, Waters, Anderson, Hollyday, and
Brown—43.
Negative— Messrs. Morgan, Ricaud, Mitchell,
Donaldson, Randall, Weems, Dalrymple, Lloyd,
James U. Dennis, Eccleston, Miller, McLane,
Bowie, Tuck, McCubbin, Thomas, Shriver, John-
son, Gaither, McHenry, Magraw, Stewart of
Caroline, Hardcastle, Fiery, Michael Newcomer,
Brewer, Weber, Slicer, Fitzpatrick, Smith, Parke,
Shower, and Cockey—33.
So the Convention accordingly adjourned un-
til to-morrow morning 10 o'clock.
DEFERRED DEBATE.
Speech of Mr. PRESSTMAN, in Convention, March
25th and 26th, on the Representation question.
TUESDAY, March 25th, 1851.
Mr. PRESSTMAN desired, he said, to put him-
self, and other gentlemen in their true position,
with regard to the imputation (if the gentleman
from Kent, (Mr. Chambers) That gentleman |
had illustrated, by his remarks, the trite adage,
"Those who live in glass houses should not throw
stones." He complains of the action of certain
gentlemen who have seen proper under the im-
pression that some concert on the part of the
friends of Reform could alone secure any liberal
basis of representation, that they have forestalled
the judgment of this body by arrangements and
binding obligations made outside of the Conven-
tion, by which the majority of the members had
determined to pass a particular measure. Before
meeting that view, which was erroneous and
without foundation in fact) he would simply re-
mind the distinguished gentleman that by his own
admissions he was a member, and took an active
part in the Whig caucus, (called as such,) which
led to the organization of this Convention. But
while confessing this, he fain would persuade us
that there is a difference between a caucus for such
a purpose and a caucus looking to the adoption of
articles in the Constitution. It so happens that
no gentleman's name was presented in connec-
tion with the Presidency of this body, who did
not command by his integrity, and by reason of
his qualifications, the entire respect of every
member of this Convention for that distinguished
position. It was not on personal grounds that
the protracted struggle which was carried on
through two weeks of our session, was sustained.
It would have been an unworthy effort which the
people of Maryland would have most justly rebuked.
The influence which the presiding of-
ficer was supposed to exert in the formation of
committees more or less favorable to certain
great measures, upon which the sentiment of this
Convention is divided, was the most prominent, if
not the only defence by which the delay could
be justified. If this be true, the gentleman will
recollect that the force of his example once set
cannot bediminished by his precepts now. But,
sir, how stand the facts in reference to this al-
leged caucus arrangement? The gentleman
from Kent had, he would undertake to say, no
authority for his assertion. That a majority of
this body had agreed in caucus upon any propo-
sition which it was intended should be carried
through this Convention.
Mr. CHAMBERS remarked, that he had merely
based his remarks upon the assertion of the gen-
tleman from Baltimore county, (Mr. Howard.)
Mr. PRESSTMAN would endeavor to show, that
the gentleman had spoken with a great deal of
freedom with regard to the action of others,
without fully knowing or appreciating the
grounds upon which they stood. Had it not been
evident that there was net a majority here who
had presented any plan which they could as yet
have adopted ? This was a sufficient answer to
the allegation.
It is equally evident that the balance of power
is in the hands of a small number of gentlemen
in this Convention, who may be said to occupy
the middle ground. They must be conciliated.
This has been the effort of the friends of compro-
mise. in no other spirit was any Constitution |
