son. Carter, Thawley, Stewart, of Caroline,
Gwinn, Stewart, of Baltimore city, Brent, of
Baltimore city, Sherwood, of Baltimore city,
Ware, Schley, Fiery, Neill, John Newcomer,
Harbine, Michael Newcomer, Weber, Hollyday,
Slicer, Fitzpatrick, Parke, Shower, Cockey,
Brown—53.
So the Convention refused to reconsider their
vote.
Mr. SELLMAN, when his name was called on
the yeas and nays just taken, rose in his seat and
stated that he had paired off with Mr, DAL-
RYMPLE, on this particular subject, he having
been called home by the sickness of his family.
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent. I now propose to
offer, as a substantive proposition, the following:
"In order that each and every portion of the
city of Baltimore may be fairly represented, and
its various interests protected in the Legislature,
for the purpose of electing delegates therein, the
city of Baltimore shall be divided into ten dis-
tricts, as follows : The first and second wards,
as now laid off, shall constitute district No. 1 ;
the third and fourth wards district No. 2; the
fifth and sixth wards No. 3; the seventh and
eighth wards district No. 4; the ninth and tenth
wards No. 5; the eleventh and twelfth wards
No. 6; the thirteenth and fourteenth wards No.
7; the fifteenth and sixteenth wards No. 8; the
seventeenth and eighteenth wards No. 9; the
nineteenth and twentieth wards No. 10."
Mr. THOMAS. Have we not a subject before
the Convention ?
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent, What is the subject
before the Convention?
Mr. THOMAS. The gentleman must first move
to take the subject up, before he can offer his
proposition,
Mr. CHAMBERS. I offer this as a substantive
proposition.
Mr, THOMAS. The judiciary report was laid
aside with the understanding that we should re-
sume its consideration again.
Mr. CHAMBERS. It was laid aside with a view
to take up this subject, it was included in the
proposition which I stated to the Convention.
Mr THOMAS. I never heard such an idea.
Mr. GRASON. I rise to a question of order.
The gentleman from Kent yesterday, or two or
three days ago, gave notice (he yesterday men-
tioned it particularly,) that he would move a re-
consideration of that article which related to re-
presentation in the House of Delegates, for the
purpose of moving three distinct propositions.
One was to enlarge the delegation of two coun-
ties, the other was to diminish the delegation of
the city of Baltimore, and the third was to dis-
trict the city of Baltimore. A motion to recon-
sider was made for that purpose, but it failed. I
think, therefore, that the motion now made by
the gentleman from Kent is not precisely in or-
der.
Mr. THOMAS. My ground was that the House
having refused to agree to the motion to recon-
sider, there was nothing before the House to
which the proposition of the gentleman from
Kent could attach. There was a distinct under-
89 |
standing, when we laid aside the judiciary bill,
that if this proposition should be reconsidered,
we would entertain any amendment that might
be moved to it, but if it should not be reconsid-
ered, we would take up the judiciary bill.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city. I suggest we
might as well meet this proposition at once.
Mr. THOMAS. I have no objection.
The PRESIDENT, The motion to reconsider
having been lost, there is no other question pend-
ing before the Convention, and the question is
what is the next business for consideration? Re-
gularly, it would be the judiciary report, but it is
competent for the Convention to postpone the
further consideration of the report, and take up
this orally other subject.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I do not mean to say a single
word, but will merely submit my proposition.
Mr. SPENCER. I suggest to the gentleman to
move to take up the apportionment bill.
Mr, JOHNSON. I desire to make a suggestion.
Sometime ago, when the subject of representa-
tion was underdiscussion, I gave notice, that I
should move lo reconsider the subject, if I found
it necessary, for the purpose of offering a distinct
proposition, before the Convention should ad-
journ, to district the entire State. The Conven-
tion has now ordered the maps, but I have not
had an opportunity to examine them, and if the
gentleman would delay his proposition, I should
like to vote on the general proposition.
Mr. CHAMBERS could not delay now, and
moved that the Convention proceed to consider
the proposition he had submitted.
Mr. SPENCER, I move to take up the appor-
tionment bill.
Mr. THOMAS. I object to taking up the ap-
portionment bill. It will open all that branch of
the government. If we should take it up, I would
take exception to the proposition of the gentle-
man from Kent, on this ground and would say
that it would be out of order, to submit a proposi-
tion which had beeen voted down already, unless
he should move to reconsider the vote by which
it has been rejected.
Mr. BUCHANAN. As a test vote, I move to lay
on the table, the motion of the gentleman from
Kent, to take up this proposition.
Mr. SMITH demanded the yeas and nays on the
motion,
Which were ordered.
Mr. CHAMBERS of Kent. I desire to propose a
question to the gentleman from the county of
Baltimore, who made this motion. I understand
this to be designed as a test vote, to put an end
to all prospect of districting the city of Balti-
more?
Mr. BUCHANAN. I can only say that I cannot
control other gentlemen, but it will be a test vote
with me.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city. I should like
to say this. If this is to be looked upon as a test vote
I shall vote to lay it on the table, but if the ques-
tion is to be agitated again, I would rather meet
it to-day, and will not vote for the motion to lay
on the table.
Several members. It is a test vote. |
