The pending question was on the amendment
heretofore offered by Mr. Bowie to the amend-
ment offered by Mr. Brent, of Baltimore city, as
an additional section to the report.
Mr. BOWIE said he now proposed to withdraw
his amendment, and to substitute for it that which
he would send to the Chair.
The PRESIDENT said that the amendment was
within the gentleman's own control.
Mr. B. then sent to the Chair the following
substitute for his amendment, which was read:
"The State shall be divided into two United
States Senatorial Districts, the Eastern Shore
shall compose the first district, and the Western
Shore the second; and it shall be the duty of the
General Assembly in prescribing the manner of
holding elections for United States Senators, and
in execution thereof, to elect alternately, from
time to time, a United States Senator from each
of said chores, as vacancies in the office of United
States Senator may respectively occur, and if the
appointment of it United States Senator shall de-
volve upon the Executive in the recess of the Gen-
eral Assembly, the same rule and mode of appointment
shall be observed by him in all appointments
of United States Senator so made."
Mr. BOWIE said that his amendment was to
carry out what is now provided for by the act of
1809, chap. 22. This arrangement had existed for
forty years between the two shores, and he thought
that good faith required this article should be incorporated
into the Constitution. He had never
heard any constitutional doubts expressed on the
subject, and in his opinion it was clearly within
the power of the Legislature to pass such an act.
And if this was so, it was certainly in the power
of the Convention to prescribe a rule of action lo
the Legislature. He hoped in this form his
amendment would meet the concurrence of the
body. It seemed to him that the question of constitutionality
never could he raised any where, un-
less in the Senate of the United States, and then
only in a case in which the Legislature should
undertake to violate or infringe upon the consti-
tutional provision, which was not to be expected.
Mr. GWINN said that he would vote against
the proposition of the gentleman from Prince
George's county. It was all true that for many
years in this State the usage had obtained, un-
der the sanction of an act of the Legislature, to
lake one United States Senator from the West-
ern and one from the Eastern Shore of the
State. It seemed to him that this course was
eminently calculated to prolong these sectional
divisions, which it was the great duty of this
Convention to put an end to. And as to the
measure itself, he could not understand why a
division of senatorial power in Maryland, be-
tween the Eastern Shore or the Western Shore,
should obtain more than between Northern
Pennsylvania or Southern Pennsylvania, or
Eastern New York or Western New York,
Northern Ohio or Southern Ohio. Indeed there
was no State whose local interests were not
different, yet he believed that Maryland was the
only State in which the Legislature had under-
taken to create Senatorial districts. The the-
ory of the Constitution had always been that the |
Senate of the United States should represent
the States as sovereignties. Two Senators were
allowed because it was a convenient number,
affording the probability that, in most contingencies,
the State would have a representative
present in that body.
There was another reason why the Eastern
Shore and the Western Shore should not be regarded
as equal in this apportionment of senatorial
representation. What were the interests
upon which the Senate of the United States
was called to act? In making treaties, regular
ing commerce, and in imposing duties for pur-
poses of revenue. It legislated chiefly upon the
commercial interests of the State, and these
certainly were not adequately represented under
the proposed rule; for the commercial and na-
tional interests of the Eastern Shore could not
be justly compared with those of the Western
Shore.
The question was then stated to be on agree-
ing to the amendment of Mr, Bowie.
Mr. DIRICKSON asked the yeas and nays)
which were ordered.
Mr. CHAMBERS regretted the introduction of
this proposition. He would have preferred the
arrangement to remain as it had existed from
the earliest period of the government. The
practice of taking one Senator from the West-
ern and the other from the Eastern Shore had
been observed uniformly and without exception,
although reasons for violating that practice
seemed very manifest to the gentleman who had
just taken his seat (Mr. Gwinn.) If he under-
stood that gentleman correctly, his theory was
that there is a manifest inferiority of one shore
to the other both in a commercial and agricul-
tural view. He would nut, however, go fur-
ther into that matter, lest he should do injustice
to the gentleman's remarks.
Mr. GWINN, Did you go no further than I did?
Mr. C. No, sir; I went no further.
Mr, GWINN. You do not wish to misrepresent
me?
Mr. C. Certainly not. I will state distinctly
that I understood the gentleman to say "that
the Eastern Shore, in point of importance, can-
not compare with the city of Baltimore."
Mr. GWINN. Now the gentleman does mis-
represent me,
Mr. C. Then I do it unintentionally, and
will hear the gentleman's explanation.
Mr. GWINN said, that he would correct the
error of the gentleman with great pleasure.
He said that the agricultural interests of the
Eastern Shore counties were not superior in degree
or kind, to those of the counties of the
Western Shore, and that a division of senatorial
power between the two district was therefore
grossly unequal, because the great commercial
interests of Baltimore are located on the West-
ern Shore, in applying the term, inferior, to
the interests of the Eastern Shore, the gentle-
man certainly ought to have understood that he
designed no reflection upon that portion of the
State. Certainly a difference in wealth, popu-
lation and commercial interests could be indi-
cated without such an idea being entertained. |
