tury, although this generation has no power to
bind posterity.
I have one word only to say in regard to the
position so often assumed here, and which is very
ingeniously elaborated in the argument of Mr,
DASHIELL—I mean the position that the existing
government is in the nature of a compact between
counties. It matters not that there were conven-
tions held by the committees of counties by whom
the Constitution was originally framed—that his-
torical fact settles nothing. The whole argument
about a confederacy of counties is overturned at
once when we see that the counties have at all
times been dependant upon and controlled by the
people of the whole State, through the legisla-
tive action. In what code will you find the re-
served rights of the counties? I say then again,
to the small counties, make a liberal compromise
now, and surrender at least one branch of the
Legislature to the sovereign people. Sooner or
later this result must follow, and perhaps far
mure in its train, because the people are omnipotent
in proportion as they are aroused to a sense
of injustice. Their ultimate triumph may be post-
poned, but can never be defeated, because they
fight under the banners of eternal truth and jus-
the.
There is one great prevailing distinction be-
tween Maryland and most of the States, where
this question of representation has been violently
agitated. In those States the majority of wealth
was opposed to the majority of numbers, and the
argument was "property against population.'
But in our State wealth and numbers go hand in
hand, and whether you look to the tax payers or
the amount of population, the majority is with
Baltimore city and Western Maryland, and yet
they are in a Legislative minority on the existing
basis, and will be continued in this minority by the
compromise of Mr. Fiery.
Again, Baltimore is a commercial and not a
manufacturing city. How can its interests be
hostile to the agricultural counties, when all ex-
perience proves that commerce is the handmaid
of agriculture.
It is also worthy of consideration that Baltimore
city, is the natural protector of the oyster
beds of the Eastern Shore It was but the other
day that we sent a steamboat and a company of
artillery, at the expense of the State, to Somerset
county, where "we met the enemy and they
were our's." Baltimore volunteers for "the
oyster war," broke up and captured the fleet of
Northern piratical cruisers. I mention this in
no jest, because there is a numerous class of excellent
and industrious citizens, on the Eastern
Shore, who live and support their families by
trading in oysters, and unless they are adequately
protected, their business must proportionately
suffer. The Eastern Shore gentlemen talk of
secession. Where will they go for protection
against Northern cruisers, who will swarm in
their waters, the moment our steam marine shall
cease to throw its protecting aegis over their
long line of shore? This ii another evidence of
the identity of interest and feeling between our
city and the small counties. |
Then, as to slavery, is not Baltimore city
sound to the core on this subject, and have not
her delegates, with perfect unanimity voted for
the fullest guarantee to the rights of the slave-
holder ? The true security and safety of the
counties, will be to unite with us. and restrict
the power of the Legislature, to impose taxes on
the people for internal improvements, and to de-
ny the power of incurring any State debt except
for defence in war.
How, with such restrictions and such harmony
of interests, can Baltimore city be dangerous?
And yet when we hear that Maryland is a State
with a big head, and amall body, and therefore
the head must be watched or it will eat the small
counties up. I am reminded of the catfish which
some one said was all head and its head all mouth.
I defy gentlemen to show how Baltimore can
barm the counties, or would desire to do so, with
the restrictions already imposed in the new Con-
stitution.
If the Senate remains as it is by the compro-
mise, Baltimore city has but one Senator out of
twenty-one, how then can Baltimore city even if
she controlled the House of Delegates, commit
aggression on the counties? Could not the Sen-
ate protect the counties by rejecting the law if
dangerous to the counties? Oh! but says the
gentleman from Allegany, (Mr. Weber,) in ten
years Baltimore would have a majority in the
House of Delegates and might control the whole
State by vetoing laws; that is, rejecting laws for
the good of the State Sir, the veto power has
always been considered a conservative power—
one fur defence only and not for aggression.
But the gentleman loses sight of the fact, that
the Senate could check the House of Delegates
also In fact the veto power would belong to
both branches, mutually, and one would control
the other as much as be controlled; but sup-
pose Baltimore city could in ten years con-
trol the House of Delegates, it would be by
virtue of her having a majority of the people of
the whole State within her limits—would it not
be her right in such a case to give to her superior
numbers, superior weight in at least one branch,
(the half,) of the government?
But I have a projet of compromise which
steers clear of even this objection untenable as
it is. My proposition which I shall submit, al-
lows Baltimore on one uniform ratio through the
whole State, but twenty-four members out of
eighty-seven, until 1861, when the whole State is
to be districted on the basis of population alone,
for the purpose of electing delegates. It is there-
fore clear, that until the State is districted,
Baltimore city cannot control even one branch
of the Legislature; and then in ten years, I
propose to adopt the district system, based
on population, which the gentleman from Alle-
gany, [Mr. Weber,] says he is prepared now to
adopt. His argument will then fall, and to be
consistent he should adopt my proposition which
applies the district system in ten years, and in
the meantime guards the counties by sixty-three
delegates to twenty-four against Baltimore city.
The great principle of my proposition is, that |
