Before doing so, I wish to call attention
to the proposition, which the gentleman has
given notice that he shall introduce, to district
the city of Baltimore, and to say that I think it
is a little extraordinary that the sense of justice
which impelled him to give a representation to
the minorities in the city, would not have im-
pelled him also to give a representation to the
minorities in the counties.
In voting against the reconsideration, I wish
it to be distinctly understood that I have not
changed one solitary view which I have taken
of the original proposition, for the basis of re-
presentation, against which I voted. I do not withdraw
a single argument or a single remark, but
on the contrary reaffirm all my objections.
I shall vote against the reconsideration, first
because the gentleman from Kent has distinctly
avowed his intention to reduce the Baltimore de-
legation; and that would be the "last ounce upon
the camel's back." I vote against it also upon
the ground that it is too late in the day, and the
time is too valuable to reagitate questions of
such moment. We have fought that battle and
let the result here stand for "weal or woe" for
the public verdict.
Mr. JENIFER. I shall vote for this proposition,
but not in order to reduce the delegation of the
city of Baltimore; because I have always been
willing that Baltimore should have ten delegates,
provided, the counties were fairly represent-
ed. But, in other particulars, the plan was
not satisfactory, and if my friend from Baltimore
county had not called for the previous question, I
am satisfied it could have been adjusted. I wish
now to state a fact, of which, perhaps, the mem-
bers from Prince George's, themselves, may not
be aware: that the returns of the population of
that county were incorrect by nearly 1800. I am
assured that it should have been upwards of 23,000
instead of 21,550. Prince George's then, with a
population of more than 33,000, has but three
delegates; while Allegany, with a population of
but 22, 872, has four. This must he corrected ;
and, if there is any doubt about the fact, we can
easily ascertain it in a few days.
Mr. J. here drew a parallel between different
sections in relation to the aggregate representa-
tion of adjoining counties, and said, that great
injustice would be done if the article adopted
was not modified, especially in regard to Prince
George's, Charles, Montgomery and Queen Ann's
counties, to say nothing of the smaller counties
The three counties, Charles, Prince George's and
Montgomery, adjoining to each other, in the same
congressional district, with an aggregate population
of more than 55,000, will have but seven re-
presentatives in the House of Delegates, whilst
the two counties of Allegany and Washington
whose population is only 51,458, will have nine
delegates. Thus two adjoining counties, with a
less population by thousands, will have a larger re-
presentation by two, than three counties also ad
joining each other—and this is done by an arbitrary
rule. |
Mr, J. said there was another fact to which
the lower counties, whether of the Eastern or
Western shore should not shut their eyes, which
was that the seven counties bordering on the
Pennsylvania line, with the city of Baltimore,
would have forty delegates in the popular branch
of the Legislature, whilst the remaining fourteen
counties had but thirty-four.
Mr. J. said he was not as sensitive as some
gentlemen were upon the subject of our institu-
tions, but he thought it right and proper, (if the
gentlemen of those upper counties were sincere,
as he was sure those in this Convention were,) in
desiring to protect the lager slave holding coun-
ties, that no cause of apprehension should be giv-
en, If for no other reason, me representation
should be equal. Add, then, one delegate to
Prince George's, to which she is clearly entitled,
give to Charles, Montgomery and Queen Anne's
each the one they would have been entitled to
had not the fraction of a fourth been adopted in-
stead of a half. This addition to those counties
is demanded by sheer justice, and which I
know was desired by my friend Mr. GRASON,
who proposed this apportionment bill. This,
Mr. J. considered, could have been done had
not the previous question been called and carried
at the moment he was on the floor to move those
amendments, which, he had reason to believe, at
the time, would have been acceptable to a ma-
jority of the Convention.
Mr. J. continued. I am utterly astonished to
see how the proposition was carried. The vote
was 42 to 40; and I find that some of the smallest
counties of the State were disfranchised by their
representatives voting for it; and when the pre-
vious question was called, cutting off amend-
ments, they voted for that also. They have sac-
rificed their counties, and they are responsible
for it. As the gentleman from Kent has not made
any proposition, I will give notice that I shall
move, if the motion to reconsider shall prevail,
the amendments I have indicated, adding one
delegate to each of the counties having but two
by the present bill, and one additional delegate
to Prince Georges, which will give to those
counties the same number of delegates they have
under the present Constitution, The House of
Delegates will then consist of eighty-five mem
hers. The two sections of the State where there
is supposed to be conflcting interests, will be
very equally divided.
Mr.J. went onto show that this fair distribution
was lost principally by gentlemen from some of
the smaller counties voting against amendments
and substitutes, which would have placed them on
a lair footing with other portions of the State, because
the city of Baltimore was given ten dele-
gates. Now, Baltimore has ten delegates, the
small counties but two—whereas had they sup-
ported the amendments, the small counties would
have had three each, and the city of Baltimore
still but ten.
Mr. DAVIS said the motion of his honorable
and excellent friend from Kent, [Mr. Chambers,] |
