Frederick, (Mr. Johnson,) allowed to each a
representation according to federal numbers,
but contained no provision for a new apportion-
ment under a new census. In this respect the
substitute was defective, because the Legisla-
ture would he at a loss to determine whether a
new apportionment ought to be made after each
national census, or at intermediate periods, ac-
cording to the annual change of population. In
the proposition he was about to submit, he had
provided against all uncertainty, and made it
the duty of the Legislature, after every national
census, to apportion the delegates among the
several counties of the State according to their
respective population.
Mr. G. then offered the following substitute,
which was read:
The Legislature at its first session after the
returns of the national census of 1860 are pub-
lished, and in like manner after each subsequent
census, shall apportion the members of the
House of Delegates, among the several counties
of the State, according to the population of
each, and shall always allow to the city of Bal-
timore four more delegates than are allowed to
the most populous county; but no county shall
be entitled to less than two members, nor shall
the whole number of delegates ever exceed
eighty or be less than sixty-five. And till the
apportionment is made under the census of
1860, the city of Baltimore shall be entitled to
nine delegates, Baltimore county to six, Fred-
erick six, Washington five, Allegany four, Prince
George's three, Anne Arundel three, Carroll
three, Montgomery two, Harford three, Charles
two, Howard two, Calvert two, St. Mary's two,
Somerset four, Worcester three, Dorchester
three, Caroline two, Talbot two, Queen Anne's
two, Kent two, and Cecil three.
Baltimore city . . . . 9 members
Baltimore county . . . 6
Frederick . . . . . 6
Washington . . . . 5
Allegany . . . . . 4
Prince George's . . . 3
Montgomery . . . . 2
Anne Arundel . . . . 3
Carroll , . , . . 3
Harford . 3
Charles. . . 2
Howard . . . . . 2
Calvert . . . . . 2
St. Mary's . . . . 2
Worcester . . . . 3
Caroline . . . . . 2
Talbot . .2
Queen Anne's . . . . 3
Kent , . . . . 2
Cecil . . . . . 3
73
Mr. DORSEY moved that the further consider-
ation of the order of the day be postponed, and
the substitute be printed; which was not agreed
to. |
The question then recurred upon the adoption
of the substitute.
Mr. TUCK thought they had better lay the
subject on the table, and rescind the order
passed two days ago allowing each gentleman
five minutes to make an explanation, whether
he offered an amendment or not; for the House
would bear in mind that gentlemen were in the
practice of raising questions of order when they
had an opportunity of discussing the question.
He moved to lay the substitute and amendment
on the table.
The question was then taken on the motion
of Mr. TUCK, to lay the substitute and amend-
ment on the table, and determined in the nega-
tive.
The question again recurred upon the adoption
of the substitute as offered by Mr. GRASON.
Mr. JENIFER moved so to amend the substitute
by striking out and inserting to "Prince George's
4; Charles 3; Howard 3; Calvert 3; St. Mary's
3; Caroline 3; Talbot 3; Queen Anne's 3; Kent
3; and Montgomery 3."
Mr. JENIFER demanded the yeas and nays,
which were ordered and taken, and resulted as
follows:
Affirmative.—Messrs. Chapman, President, Morgan,
Blakistone, Hopewell, Ricaud, Lee, Cham-,
bers, of Kent, Mitchell, Dorsey, Wells, Randall,
Kent, Weems, Dalrymple, Bond, Sollers, Jeni-
fer, John Dennis, James U. Dennis, Crisfield,
Williams, Hodson, Bowie, Tuck, Sprigg, McCubbin,
Bowling, Dirickson, McMaster, Hearn,
Fooks, Jacobs, Kilgour and Waters—34.
Negative—Messrs. Donaldson, Selman, How-
ard, Buchanan, Bell, Welch, Chandler, Lloyd,
Colston, Phelps, Constable, Chambers, of Cecil,
McCullough, Miller, McLane, Spencer, Grason,
George, Wright, Thomas, Shriver, Johnson,
Gaither, Biser, Sappington, Stephenson, Mc-
Henry, Magraw, Nelson, Carter, Thawley, Stew-
art of Caroline, Gwinn, Stewart, of Baltimore
City, Brent, of Baltimore, City, Sherwood, of
Balt. City, Presstman, Ware, Fiery. Michael
Newcomer, Brewer, Anderson, Hollyday, Slicer,
Fitzpatrick, Smith, Parke, Shower and Brown
—49.
So the amendment was rejected.
The question again recurred upon the adop-
tion of the substitute as offered by Mr. Grason.
Mr. THOMAS, moved to amend the substitute
by striking out "nine," in 15th line, and insert-
ing "ten," and by striking out "three" in the
8th line, and inserting "four;"
Mr. BRENT, of Balt. city, moved for a division
of the question, which was taken upon striking
out, and determined in the affirmative,
The question then recurred upon the amend-
ment as offered by Mr, Thomas.
Mr. DORSEY, moved for adivision of the ques-
tion upon the amendment;
The question was then taken on the first
branch of the amendment, to strike out "nine"
and insert "ten."
Mr. DORSEY demanded the yeas and nays,
which were ordered and taken, and were as fol-
lows: |
