to Baltimore but two delegates, of whom he had
the honor to be one.
Since that time, he had never asked that peo-
ple for. any honor or trust that was not granted
him, except in one instance, when only a portion
of the population could vote. He had a right,
therefore, to speak as a friend of the city. He
did not intend to lecture the gentleman, he re-
peated, and in the count of his remarks, be
thought he could make it evident, that if the peo-
ple of Baltimore desired to have a Constitution—
one which would be acceptable to them—the
chance of obtaining it was effectually destroyed
by the course pursued by the gentleman from
Baltimore. He intended, in the course of his
remarks, to show his reason for this opinion, and
then, if the gentleman could combat it, why he
might do so. These remarks applied to the
course which the gentleman had pursued.
When Patrick Henry said, in 1774, in the
House of Delegates of Virginia, " Caesar had his
Brutus, Charles the first his Cromwell, and
George the Third may profit by their example,"
he meant what he said. When the gentleman
from Baltimore threatened the small counties,
and mentioned the acts which brought Charles
the first to the scaffold—when he compared the
small counties to Charles the First, be held out
the threat to these counties in the State, that
Baltimore would rise in its strength and bring
them to the scaffold. Why, this was but a figure
of speech, for it could not be supposed for one
moment, that a high officer to whom was entrust-
ed the conservation of the public tranquility would
be the' first to recommend revolution and blood-
shed.
Mr. BRENT thought the gentleman must have
a disposition to misconstrue his remarks. If his
remarks, which he considered perfectly consistent
with peace and order, were construed
into any disposition for sanguinary revolution
on his part, he declared solemnly, upon his
responsibility as a member, that be never allu-
ded to any thing but a peaceable, legal mode, and
he would show what he meant by this when the
gentleman should conclude.
Mr. HOWARD said, that he had supposed it to
be a figure of speech merely, and had considered
it as such. He [Mr. H.] had had something to
do with the convulsions to which the gentleman
had alluded, and which ended in the Constitution
of 1836. He did not regret this, because he
found now that those gentlemen of the Conven-
tion who were eminently conservative relied
upon that Constitution.
He thought, therefore, that all those who had
any thing to do with the origin of that Constitu-
tion, had nothing to reproach themselves with,
because no one in the Convention who opposed
that movement, appeared to find fault with the
basis then fixed. He had something to do with
that civil revolution. He looked back to the
times when his own mind was filled with anxiety
during the progress of it, and he thought it was
not a thing to be lightly spoken of. He did not
know how the city of Baltimore was to rise in
her might and compel the small counties to come |
into measures, unless it should be by the force
of reason. He was incapable of comprehending
it, unless there should besome period in the history
of the State when this power could be interposed,
to check the wheels of government, as
in 1836. But during the few months of that
bistory, he would venture to by that there was
no man in the State now of reflecting mind who
did participate in the affair, who would not confess
that his thoughts and soul were filled with
anxiety upon the events then passing before him;
and now it should be seriously thought of before
it was undertaken. The experience of those
men who had anything to do with such & crisis,
would make them particularly cautious how they
undertook a second revolution of that character.
The proposition of the gentleman from Washington,
(Mr. fiery,) was stated by the gentleman
to be a mere "crumb." He had stated this
on two separate occasions. If that gentleman, a
quarter of a century ago, had tried as hard as he
did to gain two delegates added to the two Balti-
more already possessed, and had failed—for he
failed—he would not have considered this acquisition
as a "crumb " They gained four at least,
and then the city was placed upon a footing with
the large counties. Now, it was proposed to
give them ten, which is double the present dele-
gation. Was not the principle of population re-
cognized in this bill? For what reason was Baltimore
city to go beyond the larger counties,
except for population? None, on the face of the
earth. Even the gentleman from Anne Arundel
was willing to give her an excess over the counties
because she contained more population. Did not
this recognize the principle that an increase of
population demanded an increase of representa-
tion? What was the doctrine of representation
according to population? That doctrine was one
thing, and the ratio of representation was anoth-
er thing. They were perfectly distinct in their
character. Ratio in its nature was arbitrary,
depending upon the will of the majority. Why
take five thousand rather than ten thousand?—
Because of the abstract propriety of the case
only, and because it would shut out some small-
er counties entitled to representation. There
was no principle in the amount upon which the
ratio depended. It was a mere arbitrary rule.
Suppose the ratio should be made twelve thou-
sand. They would have as much right to make
it that number as any other, and it would be in-
trinsically as just, except it would shut out the
smaller counties. What would become of the
counties if they should make the ratio 20,000?
Why, half the State would be unrepresented.
The adoption of a ratio was therefore an arbitra-
ry rule, depending upon no fixed principle,—
"Crumb" as this proportion was said to be by
the gentleman, [Mr. Brent] it conceded to the
city a vast increase in representation. In regard
to the ratio that might be adopted, it was very
clear that it was entirely arbitrary. But he was
not in favor of adopting a ratio that would shut
out the small counties, and never would be.
The principle of representation had been laid |
