present basis of representation. Now he would
say that not a single man was a Reformer, in his
judgment, who voted for it, and yet it received a
vote in this body, only eight in number Wanting
to carry it. That, Mr. President, is about the pre-
cise state of parties numerically in this Conven-
tion. A majority of eight being the whole
strength of the Reformers in this body. Cer-
tainly not one. more, though there may be a few
less. Time must determine.
Mr, CHAMBERS again explained. The gentle-
man did not understand him. He (Mr. C ) un-
derstood him to assert that the proposition
which he (Mr. Chambers) had offered, was not
a compromise, but precisely the representation
we now had. In his proposition he meant to
carry out the compromise made in 1836, which
did present a different representation from that
we now had, as it anticipated the adoption of a
rule therein established to go into effect now.
Mr. PRESSTMAN. He had, he thought, fully
appreciated the grounds of the report. He
would like to know what sort of a compromise
that was which, if carried out, would not vary
the apportionment of representation three votes.
Look at the list of delegates as assigned by the
gentleman's report and see if he was not cor-
rect. This mode of attack and defence which
does not reach the substance of things, but de-
lights in vague generalities, may suit the minds
of sophists, but cannot be approved by the great
body of the people. It is but the veil which
casuistry seeks to throw over the features of a
scheme which will not bear the light. Before
concluding, he wished to ask the attention of the
Convention to a communication in the Balti-
more Argus, signed J. N., not that he was dis-
posed to make any anonymous communication
the subject of remark here, except by way of
illustration of what was termed public senti-
ment. He did not know the author; he had
nothing therefore to say in praise or blame of
him. Now, sir, what do we find are the opin-
ions therein expressed in opposition to the
amendment of the gentleman from Washington?
(Mr. Fiery.) Mr. P. here read the article,
which disapproves of the amendment because
it does injustice to the City of Baltimore and
the larger counties.
He would barely make one, single comment.
It will be perceived that the several counties
to which the writer refers as having had injus-
tice done them, have through their delegations,
distinguished for their knowledge of the wishes
of their own people, whom they represent, as
well as for talent and patriotism, advocated and
sustained the identical measure, if ignorance
is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise.
TUESDAY, April 1.
The Convention met at 10 o'clock.
Prayer was made by the Rev. M. Griffith.
The roll was called, and a quorum being
present,
The Journal of yesterday was then read.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Mr. HOWARD rose and said:—Mr. President
I ask the permission of the Convention to make |
a few remarks on a subject which is interesting
to myself almost entirely, but which involves also
the character of this body, and to which remarks
I would request the particular attention of the
gentleman from Baltimore city, (Mr. Brent.)
The President put the question on granting
leave, and unanimous consent was given.
Mr. HOWARD then proceeded as follows:
I would furthermore request the Reporter to
take down what I say, and the correspondents
of the Baltimore papers—whoever they may
be—to copy my remarks and insert them in their
notice of the proceedings of the day. I hold in
my hand a newspaper, which accidentally came
under my notice last night; called "The Sunday
Morning Dispatch,"professing to be devoted to
morals, &.c. In that paper I find a letter, which
I would not have noticed at all if the writer had
merely attributed erroneous opinions to me,
which he does. That, however, I should not
have brought before the notice of this body,
but the letter also contains, what purports to be,
an extract from a speech delivered by one of
the gentlemen from the city of Baltimore, (Mr.
Brent.) Who the writer of the letter is I do
not know, and I do not care. He says that he
is not a Baltimorean. I am glad of it, I did
hope that no one bearing that name would be
guilty of such an atrocious slander, it is stated
that before this body, in the presence of this
Convention, and in my presence, the gentleman
from the city of Baltimore heaped numerous
personal indignities upon me. Now, every mem-
ber of the body knows as well as I do that the
statement is utterly false. And my object in
saying this is a regard for the dignity of this
body as well M my own—when I say no such
speech was made in the presence of this body.
I listened with great attention to the remarks
of the gentleman from the city of Baltimore,
and I now say that I could discover nothing in
them of personal disrespect to myself. And yet
here is a letter filled with willful falsehoods; and
ushering them to the notice of the community
under the name of the gentleman from the city
of Baltimore. It is to separate those two—the
name of the gentleman from these falsehoods—
that I now rise and with that sole purpose, in
order that the people of Baltimore may do me
the justice to believe that whatever an anony-
mous letter writer may say, the gentleman who
represents the city of Baltimore here did no
such timing.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city, (speaking by
unanimous consent) said—Mr. President; I have
only to say that on Sunday last my attention
was called to a Sunday paper published in Bal-
timore. I read the article. I never had seen
the paper before. I had heard there was such
a paper. Who the author of the letter therein
published is, I know not, and cannot suispect
Certain it is, I had no lot, or part, or partcipa-
tion or privity with it. I consulted some of my
friends, to whom I read the letter, as to the
propriety of my appearing over my own name
to correct the coloring given to my remarks, as
well as to those of the gentleman from Balti-
more county, (Mr. Howard,) for he says there
that the gentleman from Baltimore county |
