which so much has been said. Allegany, Frede-
rick, Washington and Baltimore counties have a
white population of 114,538—9,519 free colored
—a total free population of 124,057— 9,841 slaves
—making a gross population of 133 898—a pro-
perty assessed at $46,552,028—and only twenty
delegates and four senators, and will have by the
plan of Judge Dorsey twenty-one delegates and
four senators.
But the inequality does not cease here. It is
still more strikingly displaced when the revenue
of the State is examined. The gross revenue
which accrued for the year ending on December
1st, 1849, (Treasurer's report, Document A.,)
was $1,504,548.98. Of this the city of Baltimore
constituted in the shape of a direct tax $175,-
762.85—as her portion of the indirect taxes,
about $200,487—and as her proportion of inter-
est in the receipts from public works, &c., (con-
sidering her proportion of assessable property as
as the basis of her claims,)—about $99,714,—in
all, $175,964, or nearly one-third of the revenue
the whole State. In directing the method of
this contribution, and in regulating its payment,
the city has but five members out of eighty-two,
and one senator out of twenty-one. And the
equalization proposed is to give one senator out
of twenty-two, and ten delegates out of seventy-
three. The relation which its power bears to its
interest, is too manifest to need further illustra-
tion. The gross contribution of Caroline coun-
ty, on the other hand, is about $6,502, all the
credits to which it is entitled, being enumerated.
Yet it has more than one-half the city's represen-
tation in the lower house, and is its equal in the
Senate, though one has a population of 169,054—
and the other 9,692—the assessed value of the
property of one being $1,418 000—and of the
other $70,000 000. Surely injustice and inequality
can go no further than this; and yet such are
the results of the compromise of 1836, which, is
said to have been very liberal to the city of Bal-
timore. Under the new plan, it is the equal of
the city in the Senate, and has one-fifth of its
strength in the House,
These illustrations prove that the basis of rep-
resentation now existing, and that proposed by
Mr. DORSEY are grossly unequal, whether num.
hers or taxation be regarded as the appropriate
standards, I do not desire to be understood as
justifying in any manner the claim of Baltimore
and of the large counties, to increased represen-
tation upon the ground of their large pecuniary
interest in the State. But as arguments of con-
venience and expediency have been repeatedly
used in the discussion of this subject, in the Convention
and elsewhere, it is right that I should
avail myself of the same means to answer those
who differ with me in my conclusions.
The differences in the assessed value of pro-
perty in the counties and city of Baltimore have
not been adverted to with any purpose of incul-
cating the idea that representation should be ad-
justed upon any scale of property. On this point
I cannot do better than adopt the emphatic lan- |
guage of Madison* that "numbers are the only
proper scale of representation." For if wealth
be taken into the account, those who possess it,
ought to have an adequate authority in appoint-
ing the agency entrusted with its control. But
the whole theory is unsound. A legislative body
should not represent land or money—but men
only. Property has received full consideration,
whon it is protected by the law. It is to this
conclusion that the States of this confederacy,
with few exceptions, are rapidly tending. Ma-
ryland stands almost alone in her adherence to
a disused system of political disfranchisment. Its
constitution, despite the numerous petty charges
which have been made, is not essentially altered
from what it was when the last proprietary gov-
ernor abandoned the province. The colonial
form of our ancient system, modeled upon an
English prototype, retains its unmistakeable
identity.
Besides, it is certain that Baltimore city, if al-
lowed the fullest representation, would not en-
danger the finances of the State. It is not likely
that experiments, which were, in part, so disas-
trous, will be again repeated by the Legislature,
however it may be constituted. But it is proper
to disavow the charge of ingratitude, which some
would imply when they allege that the embar-
rassments of the State were chiefly contracted for
the benefit of the city. Our representation at
that period was even more limited than now, and
if the city exerted any unusual influence, it was
attributable to the argument and persuasion of
private suitors. But our internal improvement
system is a matter of history, and a recurrence
to finances of the State, before and after 1836,
and to the reasons which inclined the Legislature
to enter into such undertakings, will sufficiently
demonstrate the reason of the heavy expendi-
ture which the State undertook.
In 1837 the debt of the State was not more
than $87,000. The gross revenue received for
the year ending December 1, 2837, was $266,-
416. There was a surplus remaining from the
preceding year of $103,284; and on the 1st of
December 1827, a balance, after the payment of
all liabilities, of $76,291 in cash, and $335,104 in
United States stock, belonging to the State of
Maryland. The direct taxes of the year were on-
ly $16,912. So that it can readily be seen that
the financial condition of the Slate was prosper-
ons in the extreme. Two years before, (on the
14th December, 1825,) there had been a Convention
of those favorable to internal improvement
in the city of Baltimore, of which Charles Car-
roll of Carrollton was President. The Erie canal
was then compteted. Ohio and Pennsylvania had
commenced similar works The Convention re-
commended the Chesapeake and Ohio canal, and
a lateral canal, uniting it with the Patapsco
river, to the Legislature, and advocated the ex-
tension of the work to Pittsburgh and Lake Erie.
It was supposed that, as Buffalo was nearer to
Baltimore than to New York, this canal would
enable the former city to compete with the latter
*Federalist, No. 54. |
