ever adopted, than by mutual surrender of pre-
conceived opinions in view of the great end to be
accomplished. There were not less than ten or
fifteen gentleman known as reformers in this
body, who had voted in favor of the compromise,
and who were wholly uncommitted before the
vote was cast. The gentleman had said such a
caucus was held, and yet he has to admit that he
knew nothing of the elements of the consultation
or the extent of its obligation, and he founded his
suspicion upon the remurks of the gentleman
from Baltimore county, (Mr, Howard,) who had
not even used the word "caucus." There is no
disposition on my part, since other gentlemen
have alluded to the action of the friends of the
amendment of the gentleman from Washington,
(Mr, Fiery,) to state somewhat more distinctly
its origin. That measure had been agreed upon
by the friends of compromise and adjustment, as
one most likely to secure the favorable considera-
tion of the Convention, and many who bad sup-
ported it, were bound to adhere to it as long as
there was any expectation of passing it. Thus
far the consultation on the part of some us might
be regarded as partaking of the nature of a cau-
cus. But, sir, there were other gentlemen, and
among them the mover of the proposition, (Mr.
Fiery,) who had voted for it, who had never been
bound by the action of any caucus of any kind or
description. The gentleman from Kent, (Mr.
Chambers,) must perceive that he had done in-
justice, unintentionally no doubt, to the gentle-
man who moved the amendment, and many who
had supported it.
Mr. CHAMBERS said he had not asserted that
any member was bound by the caucus. The
gentleman from Baltimore county, (Mr. Howard,)
had complained that the gentleman from Balti-
more city, (Mr. Brent,) would not conform to
the compromise, and he, (Mr. C.,) then stated his
opinions with regard to such a caucus.
Mr. PRESSTMAN replied, that because the gen-
tleman from Baltimore county, (Mr. Howard,)
had seen fit to express his regret that his, [Mr.
P.'s,] colleague had not voted for the compro-
mise, was indeed but a slight ground for the as-
sertion that a caucus had been held, binding in its
operations upon the majority of this Convention,
in which assumed state of facts the gentleman had
said that he and others might as well retire.
He would ask, what sort of a caucus is that
which meets only for consultation, and does not
command a majority vote ? The whole scope of
the gentleman's remarks, had been to bring into
disrepute any consultation outside of this Con-
vention, by which harmony of action might be
induced, and without some sort of union, no one
knows better than the learned gentleman himself,
who has warred upon such a movement, that all
hope of establishing a basis which will prove ac-
ceptable to the people, is vain and idle. Hence
these tears!
Would the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. Chambers,)
give up one iota of power now held by |
the smaller counties? Certainly not. Had not the
gentleman from St. Mary's (Mr. Blakistone) who
closed his remarks with the emphatic declara-
tion that he would die in his seat before he would
yield one inch upon the present basis of repre-
sentation, and which sentiment had been taken
up and echoed around this State, by gentlemen
known as anti-reformers? Were there sol very
many gentlemen pledged in the canvass, to yield
nothing to the spirit in which this Convention
had been called together. The eloquence of
Demosthenes would be of no avail on such minds
where reason was not left free to combat with
error. He did not use the term anti-reformer,
as a term of reproach; the people who elected
them as such, honored them in their sentiments,
hut he could not be brought to believe that in
the temper of this Convention, much good would
come in any attempt at proselyting. If there
are in sincerity a majority of reformers, the
compromise must ultimately prevail, if not, the
anti-reformers must triumph.
Mr. MITCHELL said the gentleman from Bal-
timore city was going too far in stigmatising
those with whom he, (Mr. M.,) acted as anti-
reformers. They were all in favor of some re-
forms. Did the gentleman mean by an anti-
reformer, one who would not give twenty-four
representatives to the city of Baltimore?
Mr. PRESSTMAN said that he had expressly
stated that he did not use the term anti-refor-
mer, as a stigma. God forbid that he should set
himself up "to deal damnation round the land,"
because of a difference of opinion. He spoke of
anti-reformers in the sense in which that term
is generally understood throughout the State, in
reference to the question of representation. He
was happy to know that the gentleman from
Kent, [Mr. M.,] was willing to be a reformer of
the judiciary.
Mr. MITCHELL. I am sir.
Mr. PRESSTMAN. Let me ask if any one in the
State would beat a loss to define the position of
one of the gentleman from Kent (Mr. Chambers)
he surely is not ashamed to be termed an anti-
reformer.
Mr. CHAMBERS. If the gentleman will define
the term, I will answer yes or no.
Mr. PRESSTMAN. Was the gentleman ashamed
to be voted for as an anti-reform candidate for a
seat in this Convention?
Mr. CHAMBERS replied that he was not
ashamed to be called by any name which would
designate the opinions he entertained. He was
not a reformer in the sense of desiring a change
in the Constitution in all its parts; not in the
sense of wanting a judiciary elected for a short
term of years, by the people. But in certain
particulars, he was in favor of reform. It was
but fair that the gentleman should define the
term before demanding a categorical reply.
Mr. PRESSTMAN. Are we then indeed all re-
formers? Is that term grown in high favor, and |
