Mr. JOHN NEWCOMER demanded the yeas and I
nays;
Which were ordered and taken,
And resulted as follows:
Affirmative.—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't, Mor-
gan, Blakistone, Hopewell, Ricaud, Chambers,
of Kent, Buchanan, Dickinson, Colston, John
Dennis, James U, Dennis, Dashiell, Williams,
Hicks, Hodson, Bowie. Sprigg, Dirickson, Mc-
Master, Hearn, Stephenson, Nelson, Carter,
Brent of Baltimore city, Sherwood, of Baltimore
city, Ware, John Newcomer, Kilgour and
Waters—39.
Negative —Messrs. Donaldson, Dorsey, Wells,
Randall, Sellman, Howard, Welch, Sherwood,
of Talbot, Phelps, McCullough, George, Biser
Annan, McHenry, Thawley, Stewart, of Caro-
line, Gwinn, Schley, fiery. Davis, Anderson,
Weber, Hollyday, Slicer, Fitzpatrick, Smith,
Shower and Cockey—28.
So the blank was filled with "twenty thou-
sand."
Mr. SMITH gave notice of his intention, when
the House was full, that he should move to re-
consider the vote of the Convention just taken on
the amendment.
Mr. MCMASTER gave notice that on to-morrow
he should move to reconsider the vole of the
Convention on the article creating "Howard
county."
Mr. PHELPS gave notice of his intention, at
some future day, to move to reconsider the vote
of the Convention dividing Allegany county, and
creating a new county.
The question then recurred upon the adoption
of the amendment of Mr Phelps, submitted on
4th April, to come in at the end of the 93d sec-
tion. and which is as follows:
"But new counties may be established by the
Legislature, containing the requisite population
composed of parts of two or more counties,
whenever a majority of voters in each of said
counties shall at any election for delegates to the
Assembly, desire such new county to be erected.
Provided, that no new county shall be estab-
lished unless & bill for that purpose shall be
passed at two successive sessions of the General
Assembly."
Mr. SCHLEY moved to amend the amendment
by striking out the proviso thereof.
Mr. PHELPS hoped the amendment would not
prevail. The gentleman (Mr. Schley,) he thought,
seemed to regard the making of new counties a
mere trivial affair. Now, it was not so, for there
never had been, and never should be, a county
erected in Maryland, without the action of two
successive Legislatures. He (Mr. Phelps,) trusted
that the provision on the subject would be allowed
to remain as it was. What great inconvenience
could the people suffer in having to wait
two years? Why, the people, in some sections of
the State, had remained seventy-five years, and |
even longer, without having their county organized
by act of Legislature. And yet the gentleman
thought that great evils and inconvenience
would result from having to wait two years only.
How often did it occur in the Legislature, through
log-rolling, and by undue influences brought to
bear, that bills were passed which never ought to
have been sanctioned? And the same course
might be pursued in regard to creating new coun-
ties, if the action of one Legislature only, was
required to make a bill a law of the State.
Whereas, if the people bad time to reflect on the
subject, between the two periods, a bill for the
formation of a new county might never receive
their sanction, and consequently, not become a
law.
Mr. BISER observed that his friend from Dor-
chester, [Mr. Phelps,] seemed to have forgotten
the character of his own amendment. Now, if
he had understood the gentleman correctly, he
said, in substance, that as a proposition for the
formation of a new county, might be sprung upon
the Legislature, and have it passed without hav-
ing the approbation of the people. Now, he,
[Mr. B.,] would examine and read the gentle-
man's own amendment, as offered by him, which
reads as follows;
" But new counties may be established by the
Legislature, containing the requisite population,
composed of parts of two or more counties, when-
ever a majority of voters in each of said counties
shall at any election for delegates to the Assembly
desire such new county to be erected. Provided,
that no new county shall be established, unless
a bill lor that purpose shall be passed at two suc-
cessive sessions of the General Assembly."
Therefore it was impossible, in his, [Mr. B's.]
opinion, it the amendment stood, to take the Le-
gislature by surprise, it would be necessary be-
fore a new county could be created, to have a
favorable expression at the ballot box in each
county. When a majority of the people living
within the boundaries of the contemplated new
county had expressed their desire for a county,
they should have it; that then, and then only,
should there be a new county. Now, could the
gentleman desire a greater safeguard than that ?
He, (Mr. B.,) was a people's man, and when-
ever he could get an expression of their wishes
as clear and unquestionable as this was, as requi-
red by the gentleman from Dorchester, he enter-
tained no fear that the people would do wrong
Mr. PHELPS regretted he could not see the force
of the remarks of the gentleman from Frederick,
(Mr. Biser.) the creation of a new county is
unquestionably a constitutional change, and has
always been so regarded. It effects the repre-
sentation of both branches of the General As-
sembly. This was the first time he had ever
heard the doctrine advanced, that the Constitu-
tion of the State, the fundamental law itself,
should be altered by a mere majority vote of the
people, or by a single legislative enactment.
The most ultra and radical Democratic State
in the whole Union did not recognize this doc-
trine. |
