Mr BROWN. It was then a part of Baltimore
county.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Yes; but Baltimore county
was not then what it now is, but far, very far
from it, I do not mean to go into any minute
statistical examination, but to say in general
terms, that the population of what are now the
larger counties, was then comparatively small,
when this fund was acquired, and had nut con-
tributed to the original accumulation of this
fund; on the contrary it was furnished by the
counties now comparatively small, and that,
therefore, these funds were justly, honestly, fair-
ly and conscientously distributed upon the basis
which had been assumed. I allude, of course,
Mr. President, to that portion only of the school
fund which is now thus equally distributed. As
to that part of it which we all contributed to ac-
quire, I am content we all rateably enjoy. This
is done now to the full and more. I rose simply
to put my veto on the most unqualified position
that there was " no justice " not a " pretence of
justice " in the present system. The gentleman
from Carroll had so furiously announced this po-
sition, and had backed it by such a flourish of
that tremendous index of power, [laughter, as
the remark referred jocosely to Mr Brown's up-
lifted arm ] that it seemed to be rather danger-
ous to dispute it; yet, sir, with becoming diffi-
dence, but with decided firmness, I take leave to
dispute it—every word of it.
The question was then taken on the amend-
ment of Mr. BRENT,
And resulted as follows :
Affirmative.—Messrs. Welch, Annan, Gwinn,
Brent, of Baltimore city, Sherwood, of Baltimore
city, John Newcomer, Michael Newcomer, We-
ber, Slicer Fitzpatrick and Brown—11.
Negative —Messrs. Chapman, President, Mor-
gan, Blakistone, Hopewell, Ricaud, Chambers
of Cent, Mitchell, Donaldson, Dorsey, Wells,
Randall, Sellman, Sollers, Howard Buchanan,
Sherwood, of Talbot, Colston. John Dennis,
James U. Dennis, Dashiell, Williams, Hicks,
Hodson, Goldsborough. Eccleston, Phelps, Mc-
Cullough. Bowie, Sprigg, George, Dirickson,
McMaster, Hearn, Biser, Stephenson McHenry,
Magraw, Nelson, Carter, Thawley, Stewart, of
Caroline, Schley, Fiery, Davis, Kilgour, Waters,
Anderson, Hollyday, smith, Shower and Cockey
—51.
So the amendment to the amendment was re-
jected.
The question then recurred upon the adoption
of the amendment offered by Mr. BLAKISTONE as
forty-third section to the report.
A motion to adjourn was made and negatived.
The question again recurred upon the adoption
of the amendment offered by Mr. BLAKISTONE.
Mr. MCHENRY asked the yeas. and nays on the
amendment;
Which were ordered,
And being taken, were as follows :
Affirmative.--Messrs. Chapman, President, Mor-
gan. Blakistone, Hopewell, Ricaud, Chambers,
of Kent, Mitchell, Donaldson, Dorsey, Wells,
Randall, Sellman, Sollers, Buchanan, Sherwood, |
of Talbot, Colston, John Dennis, James U. Den-
nis, Dashiell, Williams, Hicks, Hodson, Golds-
borough. Eccleston, Phelps, McCullough, Bowie,
Sprigg, George, Dirickson, McMaster, Hearn,
Biser, Stephenson, Nelson, Carter, Thawley,
Stewart, of Caroline, Schley, Fiery, Davis, Kil-
gour, Waters, Anderson, Hollyday and Smith—
46.
Negative —Messrs. Howard, Welch, Annan,
McHenry, Magraw, Gwinn. Brent, of Baltimore
city, Sherwood, of Baltimore city, John Newcom-
er, Michael Newcomer, Weber, Slicer, Fitzpat-
rick, Shower, Cockey and Brown—16.
So the amendment was adopted.
On motion, the Convention then adjourned.
THURSDAY, April 10,1851.
The Convention met at ten o'clock.
Prayer was made by the Rev. Mr. GRAUFF.
The roll was called, and a quorum being pre-
sent, the journal of yesterday was read.
Mr, RIDGELY presented two petitions, one
signed by thirty-two, and the other fourteen citi-
zens of Baltimore county, praying for constitu-
tional protection in the matter of licenses for the
sale of intoxicating liquors.
Which were read, and
Referred to the select committee appointed on
that subject.
The convention then resumed the considera-
tion of the unfinished order of the day, being the
report submitted by Mr. JOHNSON, chairman of
the committee on the legislative department.
The question pending being on an amendment
offered by Mr. LEE, as the fourty-fourth section
to said report.
Mr. RICAUD moved that said amendment be
passed over informally.
Determined in the affirmative.
Mr. MCMASTER, (in accordance with the no-
tice given by him on yesterday ) moved to recon-
sider the vote of the Convention on the article
creating "Howard county."
And on this motion, Mr. MCMASTER called
the yeas and nays.
Mr. RIDGELY said, he should be glad to hear
the gentleman who had made the motion to re-
consider, assign some reason why it should be
adopted.
Mr. MCMASTER said that his reasons were
very plain and very short. He was utterly opposed
to the creation of new counties in the
State, either upon the Western or Eastern Shore,
and thought that they had a goodly number of
them already. He was of the opinion that in
dividing Anne Arundel county, and creating
Howard District a county, they had increased
the strength and power of the city of Baltimore.
He looked upon it as the object of that city to
obtain the additional number of representatives,
to which that county would be entitled from a
division, of the territory, and therefore moved
for a reconsideration. |
