it is based on numbers, and has an uniform ratio
all over the State, making invidious distinctions
nowhere, and giving two delegates to the smallest
county. (Here Mr, Brent read the proposi-
tion which he would submit at the proper time.)
I would at once propose the district system, but
we have not sufficient data to lay off the dis-
tricts so as to do justice at present, and I there-
fore proceed for the next ten years on the census
returns, and then require the Legislature to dis-
trict the State. One of the great arguments in
favor of districting the State, is its fairness to-
wards both the great political parties.
Thus in Whig counties a Democrat may be
elected from a Democratic district, to represent
the views of the Democratic minority, which on
the present plan is wholly disfranchised. And
so in regard to Baltimore city. Whigs might
then come to the Legislature from the Whig
portions of the city, whereas now a Whig is po-
litically unrepresented in Baltimore city. It
will thus be seen that what we would lose in
Baltimore, we would gain in the counties, and
so vice versa. But the gentleman from Anne
Arundel, undertakes unjustly to district Baltimore
city alone of all the State. I denounce this
as eminently oppressive and insulting to our
people, but It is only of a piece with that spirit
of discrimination infavor of the counties, and
against Baltimore, which characterizes this Convention,
and which I will never agree by vote
of mine, to engraft in the Constitution. I will
not waste the time of this Convention, by argu-
ing the proposition of Mr. DORSEY, whose whole
conduct seems to regard Baltimore as "a raw
head and bloody bones," to the rest of the State.
Why make these distinctions against Baltimore
unless to endorse the slanders put upon her peo-
ple as a floating and foreign population by whig
party Conventions?
[Here Mr. BRENT read from the Frederick
Examiner, a whig paper, resolutions passed at a
whig county Convention last summer, describing
the population in Baltimore as a floating population.
Mr. BISER. Dots the gentleman mean Fred-
erick county?
Mr. BRENT. Yes, sir.
Mr. BISER. What is the date?
Mr. BRENT. Last summer, in the whig coun-
ty convention.
Mr. BISER, Ah, yes, not the Democratic.
[Laughter.]
Mr. BRENT then read the resolutions of the
whig Convention of Kent county, last summer,
which stated that Mr. CHAMBERS had approved
them and which also described the population of
Baltimore as unworthy of equal rights.
Mr. CHAMBERS said:
He really had hoped his former explanation of
this piece of personal history to which the gen-
tleman, (Mr. Brent,) was again alluding, would
have rendered a repetition of the process unne-
cessary. He would, however, re-state the facts
—which he did. From this it will be perceived
that he had the opportunity to read but a part of
the paper, and of course, could express his con- |
currence but with that part. Not that he now
designed to intimate a noncurrence with any of
the opinions there expressed, for he did not, in
fact, recollect, if he ever knew, what they were.
His sole object was to disclaim, being fettered
by pledges.
Mr. BRENT continued. I certainly was justi-
fied in supposing that Mr. CHAMBERS had endors-
ed the whole platform of the Kent county Con-
vention by which he was nominated, when I
found it so expressly stated in the printed pro-
ceedings of that Convention. It seems now he
did not read the platform on which he was nomi-
nated, and therefore, is not responsible fur it. I
will, however, read it, and he can now say,
whether he dissents.
[Here Mr. BRENT read the Kent county reso-
lutions, reflecting on the people of Baltimore as
not entitled by the nature of their population, to
equal rights.]
Can I agree as a delegate from that city, by
any vote of mine to endorse these aspersions on
our people? No, sir, I will never so degrade my
constituency, for in my opinion, it would be degradation
to draw an odious and unjust distinc-
tion against them.
This is one of my great reasons for rejecting
this much praised Washington county compro-
mise, so misnamed, (Mr Fiery's proposition,)
because I can see no other reason why it should
apply the principle of equal representation
to all the counties, and deny it to Baltimore
city. Gentlemen may not mean it as an en-
dorsement in the Constitution itself of all these
party aspertions on Baltimore city, which have even
been echoed again and again in these halls by the
gentleman from Anne Arundel, (Mr. Dorsey,)
who has repeatedly spoken of the rowdy popula-
tion in that city, as a reason why she should not
be trusted with power; but as I said before, I
have nothing to do with motives.
Ideal with acts and the effect of acts, and I
cannot for my life but regard the discriminations
of Mr. FIERY'S proposition, as necessarily tend-
ing to affix a stigma upon my constituency, which
I shall ever repel from any lodgment in the Con-
stitution itself.
The gentleman from Allegany, (Mr. Weber,)
has referred to Maine, Rhode Island and Louisiana,
as precedents to justify this odious distinc-
tion against Baltimore city, but their Constitu-
tions do not bear him out. The two first States
do limit the number of delegates from towns or
townships, but we all know that in those States,
a township includes county and cities, the whole
State being laid off into townships. These States,
therefore, do not grant to the rural districts,
what they deny to cities, but place town and
country under the same limit. But even if they
did draw so odious a distinction, why should we
follow them when they would stand in gloomy
contrast to the rest of the United States.
Mr. B. then showed that New York, regardless
of her immense city, and the floating nature of
its population, had given equal rights to all, by
districting the whole State, and assuming no
other basis but numbers. The great State of |
