So much for the organization of the House of
Delegates, under the measure adopted by the
Convention, it must be born in mind that the
Senate is a co-ordinate and co-equal part of the
General Assembly—and by the bill the smallest
county was placed on an equal footing with the
largest counties in the State, and by which a
double injustice is done to the more populous
and wealthy counties; for each county Is enti-
tled to one senator, whatever may be its popu-
lation, its territory, or its wealth.
Mr. GWINN. Had this motion to reconsider
occurred at an earlier period in the session, I
should have voted for it, and trusted to the
chance of a more favorable result after a solemn
argument betore the Convention. But we are
now reaching the close of the session; and if this
question be re-opened, it is beyond doubt that the
Convention must adjourn without coming to any
conclusion upon it. Moreover, the gentleman from
Kent, has announced his sole purpose to be to
endeavor to make such changes as will be still
more unfavorable to the populous sections of the
State. I shall therefore vote against the recon-
sideration, and leave this question to the adjudi-
cation of some new Convention. Perhaps no part
of the State has been more grossly injured than the
city of Baltimore. What are the small amounts
of population, and of wealth, which have been
overlooked in the counties, compared with that
which has been neglected in Baltimore? There
are gentlemen here, I am glad to say, who have
not imagined that they came here for the single
purpose of saving their own counties; but who
have had views more liberal and enlarged They
have not feared to give to Baltimore what was
justly her due. Shall we now make ourselves
the laughing stock of the whole people of Mary-
land, by opening again a discussion which must
finally defeat the measure we are assembled here
to accomplished? Whatever may have been my
convictions as to the injustice of this scheme, in
its bearing upon the city of Baltimore, I am
not prepared to take part in a transaction the di-
rect effect of which will be to renew the agitation
upon the whole question, and defeat the small
advantage we have gained. I shall vote against
the motion to reconsider, and I warn gentlemen
of the reform party, that if they re-open the
question, there is no probability that it will be
settled by this Convention.
Mr. MERRICK. I am very sure that the Con-
vention do not desire to hear a speech upon this
subject; nor have I any desire to inflict one upon
them. It is a question upon which the minds of
all are made up. I merely rise therefore to re-
ply to the gentleman from Frederick, (Mr, John-
son,) that I think the comparisons which he has
attempted to draw as to wealth, ought not to be
introduced upon a question of political power, or
in apportioning the representation of different
sections. If that principle is to obtain among
counties, why not among individuals? if the
county with its millions of property is to. have a
greater representation, why not let the individual
who owns his millions have a greater representa- |
tion? That is the legitimate result. Because
they have power by means of their wealth, it is
proposed to give them more power still. I
thought that constitutions and laws were made
to protect the feeble and the weak in their rights.
The powerful need no protection: they can pro-
tect themselves. When men unite in civilized
communities, to associate as brethren, the feel-
ings of humanity and impulses of justice and
brotherly love, prompt the establishment of such
fetters upon the powerful as shall guarentee and
protect the weak in the enjoyment of equal rights
and privileges.
The Convention have been informed in plain and
emphatic terms by the mover of this proposition to
reconsider, of the flagrant injustice done by the
present basis, to at least two of the counties of
the State, of which the county which I represent
is one. With nearly 17,000 inhabitants you cut
us off with two delegates, while Allegany, with a
fraction above 22,000 has double that number.
Is there anything like justice, or fairness, or
equality in that? Other counties with very little
over half our population, have the same number
with ourselves. In what have we sinned? What
wrongs and outrages have been committed by the
people of Charles county upon the more powerful
portions of the State, that she is to be wronged in
this way? I shall not prolong the debate. All
the faint hopes I cherished of good results from
the action of this Convention have long since
withered and died away. I cherish them no
longer. I leave this question to the judgment of
the Convention.
Mr. CHAMBERS made some remarks, which will
be published hereafter.
Mr. BROWN moved the previous question, and
being seconded,
The question was then stated upon the recon-
sideration of the vote on the section, submitted
by Mr. GRASON, and adopted on the 1st of April,
touching the subject of representation.
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent, moved that the ques-
tion be taken by yeas and nays,
Which being ordered,
Resulted as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't., Morgan,
Blakistone, Dent, Hopewell, Ricaud, Lee, Cham-
bers, of Kent, Mitchell, Dorsey, Wells, Randall,
Kent, Weems, bond, Brent, of Charles, Merrick,
Jenifer, John Dennis, James U. Dennis, Crisfield,
Dashiell, Williams, Hicks, Hodson, Goldsbo-
rough, Eccleston, Phelps, Bowie, Tuck, Sprigg,
McCubbin, Bowling, Dirickson, McMaster,
Hearn, Fooks, Jacobs, Davis, Kilgour, Brewer,
Waters, Anderson and Smith—44.
Negative.—Messrs. Donaldson, Howard, Buch-
anan, Bell, Welch, Chandler, Ridgely, Lloyd,
Dickinson. Sherwood, of Talbot, Colston, Cham-
bers, of Cecil, McCullough, Miller, McLane,
Spencer, Grason, George, Wright, Thomas,
Shriver, Johnson, Gaither, Biser, Annan, Sap-
pington, Stephenson, McHenry, Magraw, Nel- |
