clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Proceedings and Debates of the 1850 Constitutional Convention
Volume 101, Volume 2, Debates 234   View pdf image
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space
234
wishes, but to effect acompromise of conflict-
ing opinions. It had been intimated that ten
members were allowed to Baltimore, for the
purpose of securing a majority of Democrats in
the House of Delegates. But that number would
not produce such a result. There would always
be a majority of Whigs in both houses, unless
in the event of some great change in the poli-
tics of the State, There might, on extraordi-
nary occasions, be an accidental majority of
Democrats; but, as he had already said, perma-
nent ascendancy would be with the Whig party,
and he had never sought to avoid this result by
a constitutional provision. He had insisted
upon giving to Somerset four members, and had
been willing to allow to Charles and Montgom-
ery one more than their fractions entitled them
to, though these were all Whig counties. He
did not think it necessary to disclaim party pur-
poses; his object, in presenting his proposition,
was to settle the question and terminate the dis-
cussion, which had occupied so much of the
time of the Convention.
Mr. JENIFER inquired when it was that the
gentleman had proposed to give Montgomery
and Charles each an additional vote.
Mr. GRASON stated that the gentleman from
Charles (Mr. Jenifer) had called upon him, and
in a list, then presented to his notice, Charles
county had 3 Delegates, Montgomery 3, and
Somerset 4. He had become convinced that the
3 Delegates would not be carried, the gentleman
from Charles had himself declared that he would
not vote for a plan that would give Charles
county more than St. Mary's.
Mr. JENIFER said that he recollected the time
referred to. Upon examining the proposition
he had become satisfied that a majority would
be given by it to the anti-slaveholding counties;
and if the gentleman from Baltimore county
(Mr. Howard) had not called the previous ques-
tion, he should have stated the fact and shown
that it was correct. If the gentleman would
make a motion to reconsider, the plan might
be so varied as to give general satisfaction.
Mr. J. said as he considered the interest of the
small counties the same, they being all agricul-
tural, he desired to see them fairly represented
in the Legislature, and he would not consent to
abandon any of them for the purpose of giving
one Delegate for Charles. He admitted that the
gentleman had purposed to give Charles one
additional Delegate, but that could not induce
him (Mr. J.) to vote for the substitute. He
would not make a bargain for his own county
constituents, while others were in the same cat-
egory.
Mr. J. said he was sure that such was not in-
tended by his friend from Queen Anne's., (Mr.
Grason,) but certain it was that because he
(Mr. J.) would not vote for the proposition with
the one additional Delegate offered to Charles,
three was stricken out and two inserted, as it
now stands. But Mr. J. said if the gentleman
would move to reconsider, and add one addi-
tional Delegate to the counties he had proposed,
he (Mr. J.) would vote for the gentleman's proposition.
Mr. GRASON would prefer not to make that
motion.
Mr. HOWARD. Before I proceed to express
some of the thoughts which have occurred to
me in the course of the last hour, I will dispose
of the amendment immediately under considera-
tion, that offered by the gentleman from .Fred-
erick, by saying that I concur with him in that
proposition; and if there be apparently different
interests in the State, which I doubt very much,
I am willing so far to recognize that apparent
diversity as to divide the State into four dis-
tricts, as he proposes, and thus provide success-
fully for the representation of each of these dif-
ferent local interests. In the course of our
deliberations here, we have found what no. one
could have predicted, that our main difficulties
have occurred from the existence of sectional
feelings, and supposed local interests. We have
found sectional questions before us at every
turn. We have had it represented that Balti-
more city was going to swollow up all the
smaller counties. Then it was said that the
large and populous counties in the Northern and
Northwestern part of the State, were leagued
in battle array against the smaller counties.
Then it was said that the non-slaveholding coun-
ties, a class which I cannot recognize, because
the county which I have the honor in part to
represent, and which is classed under that gene-
ral designation, has a number of slaves within
its BORDER=0s nearly equal to that in several of the
counties, and more than that, in one of these
counties classed as slaveholding, that the non-
slaveholding were leagued against the slave-
holding counties, in addition to these unfortu-
nate divisions thrust in upon us, we have now a
jealousy between shore and shore, and the two
sections arrayed in a formidable manner against
each other. With regard to other distinctions,
they have passed away; they have been settled
by the votes of this Convention. They never
did really exist, and they never ought to have
influenced the deliberations of this body. And
yet, sir, appeals were made in a very impassioned
manner to our sense of justice. The gentleman
from St. Mary's, in the course of his remarks,
said that the people of his county were about to
be injured. I found no fault with him for the
expression of that opinion. It was one of the
effects of his local feelings, and he had a perfect
right to express it here; but there was no cor-
responding feeling any where upon the other
side; I am perfectly sure there was none in my
mind. I had no desire to injure the people of
that ancient and venerable county. Although I
never had the pleasure of visiting that county,
or Charles, or Calvert, I look to the people of
these counties with the same feelings that for-
eigners who have come over to the United States
look back upon their father land. I have the
same respect for their history and character and
feelings and interests, that one of their own in-
habitants possesses. There is something there
which appeals to my pride as a citizen of Mary-
land; and there is a common interest between
myself and those people that cannot be forgotten
or trifled with.


 
clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Proceedings and Debates of the 1850 Constitutional Convention
Volume 101, Volume 2, Debates 234   View pdf image
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  November 18, 2025
Maryland State Archives