were obliged to remodel their government to
correspond with the changed circumstances of
the times.
That is all that is asked for or wished for
here. We remodel the constitution to suit the
changed circumstances of the times in Mary-
land, keeping in view the same fundamental
principles which originally established that
constitution. It is in that way that the balance
of power has shifted from the Eastern Shore to
the north western counties. Let it go. It is
only one step in the onward march of the his-
tory of the State, and like the corresponding
step in the march of the history of the United
States. We all know that the balance of pow-
er has shifted from one great section of the
Union to the other. Can it be stayed? No, sir.
It must move on, and carry with it whatever
destinies it may. The onward march of these
liberal principles cannot be obstructed.
I say, therefore, that in my judgment, these
accusations which have been made against us
who supported the bill of the honorable gentle-
man from Queen Anne's, of stripping the East-
ern Shore of her rights, have no foundation in
justice, it is the Eastern Shore which adheres
to the enjoyment of rights the foundation of
which has passed away. It is upon our part an
effort to prevent them from the enjoyment of
exclusive privileges. That is all. I do hope
that we shall in this body accustom ourselves to
think and speak a little more as the representa-
tives of the people of Maryland—as a unit. The
auxiliaries of commerce are bringing all parts
of the State together. We are penetrating
every little creek and harbor in the State with
our steamboats. This increased communica-
tion of the people with each other will infalli-
bly, at some time or other, remove local preju-
dices and jealousies. It is this change in our
circumstances which has caused us to do what
we have done here. Our ancient prejudices
are melting away, and we begin to have a little
more confidence in the equity and impartiality
of our fellow men. Where is the difference
between a gentleman residing upon the Eastern
and one residing upon the Western Shore?
They have the same habits, the same interests,
and the same sentiments towards the State com-
mon to them both. And when, in the course of
inter-communication now going on and continu-
ally increasing, the people of the different sec-
tions of the State shall perceive that they are all
citizens having common interests, a common
history, common rights, and a common future,
these prejudices will, in my judgment, entirely
disappear.
Mr. DAVIS said that it seemed by the remarks
of the honorable gentleman from Queen Anne's,
(Mr. Grason,) that no principle, or general rule
had been adopted as the basis of representation
by his scheme. He wished to inquire what had
induced the gentleman to cut down Montgome-
ry county one-half—from four delegates to two.
Montgomery county had nearly 16,000 souls;
Allegany had but little over 22,000. He would
like to know why there was a difference of fifty
per cent. between the two counties in their re- |
presentation. He would like to know why there
had been 33 1/3 per cent. difference between Anne
Arundel and Montgomery county. He had just
returned from his county, where he had been
called by illness in his family, and had found
his constituents exceedingly excited upon this
question, and fearful that they were about to be
compelled to submit to degradation in the rep-
resentation to be given to them in the Legisla-
ture hereafter.
Mr, GRASON said he would endeavor to satisfy
the gentleman from Montgomery. In fixing the
number of delegates, whatever ratio might be
established, some of the counties must lose more
than others, by having a larger fraction unrepre-
sented. But this inequality would be changed
under every new apportionment. According to
his plan, one delegate was allowed for every 6000
inhabitants, and one additional delegate for a
fraction equal to three-fourths of that number.
in allowing for fractions, his plan, like others,
was arbitrary, hut, after the next census, the in-
equality among the different counties might be
reversed. He had wished to give to Charles and
Montgomery counties three delegates each; but
as neither, had a fraction that would justify it
under his rule, it was necessary to yield to the
wishes of those upon whose support the success
of his bill depended. Charles, Montgomery, and
Queen Anne's would all lose large fractions, but
it was impossible to fix any ratio or establish
any rule that would produce an exact equality
among all the counties of the State.
Mr. DAVIS. Then I understand that the prin-
ciple or rule in settling this matter has been
abandoned, and Montgomery had been sold to
gain votes for the gentleman's proposition. That
was the point which he wished to carry home to
his constituents. He wanted them to under-
stand that their rights had been sold to carry a
favorite proposition, which politically destroys
her standing and influence in the State.
Mr. GRASON said that the gentleman from
Montgomery might carry back to his county
what representations or misrepresentations he
pleased. He had not stated that Montgomery
and Charles were entitled to three delegates, but
that he wished to allow that number on account
of their large fractions, but that he could not
gratify his own wishes in that respect without
defeating the bill.
Mr. DAVIS said he would have the gentleman
to understand that he did not intend to misrepre-
sent him, nor would he be told that he would
misrepresent him. He could draw no other in-
ference from his remarks, or from the fact.
They were, as the gentleman had said, that he
thought Montgomery entitled to another dele-
gate, and he wanted to give it to her, but that he
could not carry his proposition by so doing.
What other inference then, than that Montgom-
ery has been sacrificed to get votes for the pro-
position.
Mr. STEPHENS moved the previous question,
but withdrew it at the request of Mr. DORSEY,
who promised to renew it.
Mr. GRASON said that it had not been his pur-
pose to change the day of election, as it had been |
