"Provided, That no new county shall be estab-
lished unless a bill for that purpose shall be passed
at two successive sessions of the General As-
sembly."
Mr. SMITH suggested that the substitute re-
quired a majority of the whole number of voters
in the county and that this would be fatal to the
whole matter. Those collected around the
court-house and in the populous portions of the
county, would oppose the division, however ne-
cessary it might be to another portion of the
county.
Mr, MCHENRY remarked that the section
would not effect the previous action of the Con-
vention with reference to Allegany county. He
thought a county ought not to be divided unless a
majority were in favor of it,
The CHAIR ruled the amendment moved by
Mr. DORSEY, out of order.
After some discussion upon this decision,
Mr. PHELPS modified his amendment by in-
serting after the word "Assembly," in fourth line,
the words "in manner to be prescribed by the
Legislature."
After some further discussion upon a point of
order,
The amendment was adopted as modified.
The question then recurred on the adoption of
the substitute as offered by Mr. McHenry, for the
23rd section as amended.
Mr. BROWN stated that he should vote in favor
of the substitute, offered by the gentleman from
Harford, although he thought the phraseology
defective, and whether it prevailed or not. should
vote against the whole project. He thought it
would induce the people to believe that they
could get new counties, and they would go to
great expense in order to obtain them, and yet
must always be defeated There would not be a
county in the State in which the majority of the
voters of the county would agree to part with
any person of it. Carroll county had been
erected right in the teeth of Frederick and Baltimore
counties. Although the people who lived
in the proposed new county would almost unani-
mously vole in favor of it, yet the remainder of
the voters would out number them. If in any
case the new county should prevail in the first
instance, it would beoverthrown before it could
be finally passed. By such a provision, they
would "keep the word of promise to the ear, and
break it to the hope." He would prefer to see a
clause giving the Legislature power, whenever
they thought proper, to create new counties; or
he would prefer that the whole matter should lie
over until another Convention assembled. At the
end of ten years the State ought to decide whether
to hold a new Convention or not, and it might be
left until that time. He thought there were
counties enough just now.
Mr PHELPS said he was a little astonished to
hear the gentleman from Carroll [Mr. BROWN ]
say he was opposed to having any mode to create
new counties. He had, himself, no great interest
in the erection of new counties; but he thought
that public convenience might require new coun-
ties to be erected. He should not be disposed, |
however, to vote for the project of the gentle-
man from Harford, because bethought that new
counties should not be carved out lightly, or se-
gregated by the whim and caprice of the mere
majority of the people. He differed from the
gentleman from Carroll, as to the proprie-
ty of leaving the whole matter to the next
Convention, for he believed there would not be
another one for one hundred and fifty years.
There certainly would not be another one so long
as tradition or history should carry down to pos-
terity the doings of this Convention He trusted
that some provision would be made for new coun-
ties, although he was not prepared to say that the
mode should be a simple act of the General As-
sembly.
Mr. BOWIE was satisfied that there should be
some provision in the Constitution with regard
to the formation of a new county; but that it
ought not to be too easily done. Least of all,
ought a county to be dismembered without the
assent of a majority of the people of that coun-
ty, He should consider such an act tyrannical.
But, if the majority wished the county to be di-
vided. they had a right to expect it to be done.
He was willing to vote for the article as it now
stood, but should vote against the substitute of
the gentleman from Harford, to authorise the for-
mation of a new county, without defining the po-
pulation it should have, or what population the
county from which it should be taken, should
have; simply declaring that when formed, both
should have three delegates—an arbitrary rule,
and an arbitrary basis. It seemed to him that
this would be a dangerous power, and he hoped
it would not receive the sanction of the Conven-
tion.
The question being then taken upon the sub-
stitute, it was rejected.
The question then recurred upon the adoption
of the twenty-third section as amended.
Mr. DORSEY differed from the opinion express-
ed by the gentleman from Prince George's, and
believed that a majority of the voters of both
counties ought not to be required, for rarely, if
ever, would a majority—be the emergency what
if might—give its assent to the division. Most
of the population were collected in one portion
of the country, and were anxious that the coun-
ties should be as large as possible. In Anne
Arundel county, there had been a district formed
for some time previous which had rendered the
creation of the county more acceptable than it
would otherwise have been. He trusted that a
majority vote would not be required.
Mr. BOWIE could not conceive of any motive
whatever, when the public convenience required
a new county why the majority of the people
should be unwilling to permit its formation. He
could never agree that the legislature ought to
have the power against the will of a majority of
the people to divide a county. The proposition
seemed to him monstrous. To give a mere mi-
nority power to dismember any two counties
against their will, for political or other purposes,
seemed to him gross injustice, and such a propo-
sition could never receive his sanction. |
