sible benefit could he derived from the adoption of
the proposition of the gentleman from Charles,
(Mr. Jenifer.) He [Mr. S.] did not believe that
any benefit was to resuit from delay. He was
not yet convinced that the Convention could not
settle the question as well for itself, as by the in-
tervention of any committee. Ha believed that
if such a committee should he appointed, it would
be just as little able to act as the Convention
itself.
Mr. JENIFER (interposing.) The adoption of
the proposition can do no harm.
Mr. SPENCER. Yes, it can and will do harm—
for it will cause delay. We are in a better con-
dition now, I think, to harmonize, than we shall
be by the interposition of any committee. At all
events, let us try one day's more voting before
any new project is entertained.
Mr. JENIFER. Well, I am content; and I will
move that the further consideration of the order
be postponed until to-morrow.
The question on that motion was taken, and
decided in the affirmative.
So the further consideration of the order was
postponed until to-morrow.
The Convention then resumed the consideration
of the order of the day, being the several reports
of the committee on Representation.
The question pending before the Convention on
yesterday being on the motion of Mr. Shriver,
for a division of the question upon the first branch
of the amendment offered by Mr. Johnson, for
the 2d section of the report of the committee on
Representation.
Mr. Dorsey moved to amend the amendment
offered by Mr. Johnson, by striking out these
words, " to be determined by adding to the whole
number of free persons, including those bound to
service for a term of years, three-fifths of all other
persons."
Mr. DORSEY said, that in some parts of this
State, for instance, in the city of Baltimore,
there were a great number of persons who pur-
chased slaves fur a term of years, not choosing
to hold slaves for life. In contemplation of
law, they were still regarded as slaves, and for
all criminal offences they wore punished accord-
ingly; yet in the report of the committee now
under consideration, they—as respects repre-
sentation—were placed on terms of perfect
equality with a native born while citizen of a
slaveholding county. The same practice, he
was informed, prevailed in Frederick, Wash-
ington, Allegany, and Carroll counties, and, to
a limited extent, in most of the counties of the
State. Surely, during the time of their con-
tinued slavery, no reason can be assigned why,
as regards representation in the Legislature,
any discrimination should be made between
them and slaves for life; much less should they
be held on a perfect equality with native born
white citizens; for in doing so, great injustice
is done to the slaveholding counties by the city
of Baltimore, and the non-slaveholding counties
which perpetrate it.
He should for this and other reasons, there-
fore, vote against this unequal and unjust basis
of representation in the Legislature. |
Mr. PHELPS demanded the yeas and nays.
Mr. JOHNSON, by permission of the Conven-
tion, withdrew the first branch of his amend-
ment, and submitted in lieu thereof the follow-
ing, which was read:
"The House of Delegates shall be composed
of members, to be apportioned among the
several counties and the city of Baltimore, as
follows,'"
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent, moved to amend
the amendment by adding at the end thereof the
following, which was negatived;
"Being pursuant to the ratio herein provided
according to their several federal numbers a»
shown by the recent census;"
Mr. JOHNSON, with the consent of the Con-
vention, modified his amendment by striking
out after "Baltimore county," the word "seven"
and inserting "six," and also by striking out
after "Frederick county," the word "seven"
and inserting "six."
Mr. DORSEY said that in some parts, &c.
[Vide p.2.]
Mr. D, then moved to amend the amendment
by striking out the words "as follows," and
inserting "according to their population, as
shown by the late census of the United States."
Mr. DORSEY demanded the yeas and nays,
which were ordered and taken, and were as fol-
lows:
Affirmative.—Messrs. Dorsey, Kent, Sellman,
Howard, Phelps, Tuck, Bowling and
Brewer—8.
Negative.—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't, Mor-
gan, Blakistone, Hopewell, Lee, Chambers, of
Kent, Mitchell, Donaldson, Weems, Dalrymple,
Bond, Sollers, Jenifer, Buchanan, Bell, Welch,
Chandler, Lloyd, Colston, John Dennis, James
U. Dennis, Williams, Chambers, of Cecil, Mc-
Cullough Miller, McLane, Bowie, Sprigg, Mc-
Cubbin, Spencer, Grason, George, Wright, Di-
rickson, McMaster, Hearn, Fooks, Jacobs,
Thomas, Shriver, Johnson. Gaither, Biser, Sappington,
Stephenson, McHenry, Magraw, Nel-
son, Carter, Thawley, Stewart, of Caroline,
Stewart, of Baltimore city, Brent, of Baltimore
city, Ware, Fiery, Michael Newcomer, Kilgour,.
Waters, Anderson. Slicer, Fitzpatrick, Smith,
Parke, Shower and Brown—64.
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. JOHN DENNIS asked by what process of
reasoning the gentleman from Frederick [Mr.
Johnson], arrived at the conclusion by which he
apportioned four delegates to Allegany and only
three to Somerset, their population being about
the same. After a pause, Mr. D. added, that
he asked for information only, as he wished to
vote understandingly.
The question then recurred upon the adoption
of the amendment offered by Mr, Johnson.
Mr. GRASON thought there was so near an
approach to an agreement on the subject of
representation, that it could be settled as easily
in the Convention as in a committee of confer-
ence. His objections to the various plans which
had been proposed were, that they were defec-
tive in the provisions for making apportionments
according to the changing population of the
counties. The substitute of the gentleman from |
