ticket system. Now, it did not follow that Balti-
more city would elect a judge if we adopted the
general ticket system.
He believed that such was the progress of pre-
judice and county hostility to Baltimore city, that
he did not believe a Judge or a Governor could
be elected now from Baltimore city. And he
thought that was one great reason why Mr. Car-
roll was defeated, some years ago, for Governor.
Certain it is, that every Democratic candidate for
Governor has been elected, but the one who re-
sided in Baltimore city. That fact speaks vol-
umes of prejudice and hatred in the counties.
And he would undertake to say that, under the
new Constitution, if they would serve for such
inadequate salaries, men could be nominated for
the Court of Appeals, whose nominations would
be received by the people with acclamation, and
command their almost unanimous suffrages. He
knew of one gentleman, who, if nominated, would
receive the votes of Whigs and Democrats for the
office of Chief Justice,
Whatever might be the imputations and suspi-
cions on those who advocated the general ticket,
so far as he was capable of divesting himself of
party feelings, he had done so and only advocated
an election by the whole State, because he saw
there was reason in it—because the whole people
had a common interest in it. It was not a local
election for a local jurisdiction. He had only to
say, in conclusion, that in the remark he had
made in reference lo the gentleman from Queen
Anne's. (Mr. Spencer,) he did not intend any
thing that was unkind; he wished him to carry
out his republican doctrines. He bad never heard
it said until to-day that the gentleman was in-
structed by his constituency on the subject of rep-
resentation.
Mr. SPENCER I did not say so.
Mr. BRENT. He says he did not Bay so.
Mr. SPENCER., I spoke of the known senti-
ments of the people.
Mr. BRENT. The known sentiments of his peo-
ple are confined in county lines, and should not
limit republican doctrines of right and justice.
Mr. SPENCER said he regretted that the gentle-
man (Mr. Brent of Baltimore) had pressed this
subject. He (Mr. S.) had sought to avoid it,
but it was forced upon him. He had never made
reference to the course pursued by gentlemen on
the subject now discussed. When he had said
to his friend that he thought the subject ought not
to he introduced, he had hoped that he would see
the propriety of abstaining from it. He had, nev-
ertheless, pressed the matter, and charged him
with putting in a demurrer to the jurisdiction. He
(Mr. S.) had assigned one good reason to the
gentleman for his course; but that was not
enough; he would now give him other rea-
sons. He desired it to be understood that in this
very city of Baltimore there was a wing of the
democracy which the gentleman (Mr. Brent)
represented here; but that he, (Mr. S.,) in giving
his vote, had represented that very wing whilst
the gentleman had not. Sir, that wing has from
time to time, proclaimed to the counties that they
did not claim representation according to popula-
tion; that their only claim was, that Baltimore |
city should be put on a footing with the largest
county. Sir, to this effect they issued their circu-
lar
Mr. BRENT, (in his seat.) Specify.
Mr. SPENCER. The Democratic Central Committee
of Baltimore. In all their circulars relating
to all matters of reform, not a word was
said about representation by population. And
when the democratic party of Baltimore poured
into the country—except in western Maryland—
and when her public speakers engaged in dis-
cussing the question of reform, they did not
allude to or say any thing in reference to repre-
sentation according to population. Yes, sir, he
said, in voting the vote he had given on that
subject, that he not only voted the feelings of his
constituency, but also those of democratic Bal-
timore, and for even more than she had hereto-
fore claimed. And he would ask now, why is it
that gentlemen make complaint upon the subject
of representation? When the call of this Conven-
tion was advocated at the hustings and everywhere,
it was known that the people of the coun-
ties would never consent to give representation
according lo population. The members from
Baltimore, in the Legislature, in advocating a
convention, in order to obtain it, had asserted in
debate that it was untrue that Baltimore de-
manded a representation according to population,.
and took the same ground as contained in the
circulars from the city. Yet some of the same
men in the city of Baltimore, who had heretofore
held this doctrine, have recently set forth their
fulminations against the members of this body,
because they have sustained a consistent course
here, and have voted in conformity with the
pledges these very men had given to the public.
He was sorry to say this. The responsibility was
on the gentlemen who had forced the debate.
When he (Mr. S.) settled his account with his
constituency he would have a fair proof sheet.
He hoped it would he so with the gentleman.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city. The gentle-
man from Queen Anne's (Mr. Spencer) says he
represents a wing of the democratic party of
Baltimore. I should like to know what wing,
and where he derives his credentials from. I
wish to see his credentials,
Mr. SPENCER explained, and said that he had
said that the Democratic party of Baltimore
had heretofore disclaimed representation ac-
cording to population, and he believed there
was not a Democrat in this body who would not
sustain him in the assertion. [Great confusion
and noise,]
The only claim it made was for representa-
tion equal to the largest county in the State.
Mr. THOMAS rose, but gave way to
Mr. BRENT, who said he would like to see the
document to which the gentleman (Mr. Spen-
cer) had referred. Let the gentleman show the
document. He had never seen such a docu-
ment. Now, there had not been any anti-repre-
sentation doctrine preached in Baltimore on the
hustings, or at a ward meeting, or any where
else. The gentleman said that the. last circular
issued by the Democratic State Committee pro-
claimed no such doctrine. Why not? Because |
