do gentlemen seek to win and wear the title?—
He had been called upon to define the term re-
former. Well, he, (Mr. P.,) would admit that
he might have some difficulty in defining the
term it he consulted the dictionaries, but not the
least if he looked to the popular acceptation of
the term.
He called a man a reformer who was in favor
of altering the present basis of representation to
a more liberal system, by which the rights of the
majority, if not fully established, would be
strengthened and supported. He would call a
man a reformer if he was disposed to take mid-
dle ground from choice and not necessity.
But he would call no man a reformer who
avowed himself in favor of no change and would
not yield any thing but from the fear of being
called upon to yield more.
Would the gentleman desire to have an in-
dictment read, that he might escape, not from the
substance of the charge, but through some flaw
or quibble in the draught? Perhaps the gentle-
man might take up some technical objections;
he was familiar with the loop-holes of metaphy-
sical defences.
If we lived in the day, when doctors would
dispute upon the question—how many
would dance upon the point of a needle? (Laugh-
ter.) he might be called upon to define with
more minuteness than he had done, the distinction
between reformers and anti-reformers. He
might instance the vote in favor of the proposi-
tion of the gentleman from Kent; no one who
voted for that plan, could in his judgment, lay
any claim to the character of a reformer,
Mr. MERRICK stated, that he had voted against
the amendment of the gentlemen from Washing-
ton, (Mr. Fiery,) but had always been infavor
of a compromise.
Mr. PRESSTMAN. Very true, sir, he had al-
ways esteemed that gentlemen as disposed to be
liberal, and he did not believe he was desirous
that no change should be made, and had not
voted for Mr. CHAMBERS plan.
While upon the floor, he would say a few
words upon the main question as it was not his
intention to speak upon that subject again. He
did not wish to interpose between the gentle-
man from Baltimore county, (Mr. Howard,) and
his friend and colleague, (Mr. Brent,) who had
had what might be almost termed a passage at
arms this morning. For both gentlemen he en-
tertained a high regard, and each was capable of
defending himself.
it was due to the gentleman from Baltimore
county, (Mr. Howard,) to say that he was right
in supposing that the delegation from the city of
Baltimore, was divided upon the question of rep-
resentation, not that in the opinion of either one
of them, that the claim of the city had been ful-
ly met and granted, but in an entire unwilling-
ness no the part of those who advocated the com- |
promise to defeat that measure and thereby jeo-
pardize, in their opinion, the interests of the peo-
ple of Baltimore.
Those of us who sustain the compromise agree
fully in the opinion expressed by him that the
sentiment of the people of Baltimore, would
sanction under the circumstances in which the
Convention is placed, a fair and liberal adjust-
ment.
His colleague, (Mr. Brent,) would do him the
justice to say, that he had voted for the incorpo-
ration of the principle of representation accord-
ing to numbers in the House of Delegates. He
had stated more than once that the people of
Baltimore desired the popular basis in the fullest
latitude, but it was due to truth and candor to
say, that he avowed, from the beginning, that
looking to the basis upon which the Convention
was called, he did not believe that his constitu-
ents regarded the strict adherence to that princi-
ple as a sine qua non. He would now reiterate,
that he could not bring himself to believe that
any common sense man, within the limits of the
city of Baltimore, expected that principle to be
carried out to its fullest extent at this time. In
some future Convention it possibly may. When
he voted tor the proposition of the gentleman
from Washington, (Mr. Fiery,) he knew that no
plan as favorable to the city of Baltimore would
be offered, and even that would not have been if
a portion of the Baltimore delegation had not by
the conciliatory course pursued by them, pro-
duced a better state of feeling with reform mem-
bers from the counties, than existed at the com-
mencement of our session.
Mr. BRENT wished simply to call the attention
of his colleague to the fact that there was now &
proposition lying upon the table to give twenty-
four representatives to Baltimore city.
Mr. PRESSTMAN would be most happy to re-
spond to the suggestion. He would vote against
the proposition because every mail in the House
knew it would not command two votes. As long
as the reformers of the counties could stand by
the compromise, he was in good faith ready to
uphold it. Why, sir. does not my colleague know
that there is not the first man who voted with
him against the compromise who is prepared to
give to the city of Baltimore as high a represen-
tation as that plan proposes? And sir, let me
say to him, that two out of the tour Democrats
who voted against that plan, (Messrs. Sappington
and Stephenson, of Harford,) are unwilling to
give even ten delegates to the city of Baltimore.
Can the delegation of Baltimore city expect
for a single instant, to control the settlement of
this question on more favorable terms? He was
willing to confess that he felt the necessity of
support in a grave crisis like the present, and re-
joiced to think that if he had erred, he had at
lest the proud satisfation of knowing that he was
enlisted on the same ride with men not only dis-
tinguished by every virtue which could characterise
a statesman, but men had grown grey in
the service of the people—men whom the great |
