the proposition of the gentleman from Freder-
ick, (Mr. Johnson,) be referred to a committee.
If the committee be appointed, does it exclude
the reference of any other subject-matters but
these propositions? Is it not in order to amend
the motion by moving that the committee be in-
structed to report the articles I have read ? The
motion is to refer specific proposition to a com-
mittee, Have I not the right according to parlia-
mentary law, to amend the motion by moving to
incorporate in the reference certain other sub-
ject-matters?
The PRESIDENT. The committee has not yet
been appointed. If the committee is appointed,
it will then be competent to give instructions to
the committee us to the nature of its report.
Mr. DAVIS. I wish to know whether another
motion cannot be substituted—that we go into
committee of the whole?
The PRESIDENT. This is a privileged question;
and it is not debateable.
Mr. JOHNSON. I wish to have referred the
proposition which I moved some time ago; that
it might also go the committee.
Mr. THOMAS. I will modify my proposition so
as to embrace the proposition referred to by my
colleague.
The question was then stated to be on the mo-
tion of Mr. THOMAS to refer these various propo-
sitions to a committee.
Mr THOMAS demanded the yeas and nays on
the motion, which were ordered, and being ta-
ken, resulted as follows :
Affirmative—Messrs. Buchanan, Bell, Welch,
Chandler, Ridgely, Lloyd, Dickinson, Sherwood,
of Talbot, Colston, Chambers of Cecil, McCul-
lough, Miller, McLane, Spencer, George, Wright,
Thomas, Shriver, Johnson, Gaither, Biser, An-
nan, Sappington, Stephenson, McHenry, Magraw;
Nelson, Carter, Thawley, Stewart, of Caroline,
Harbine, Michael Newcomer, Weber, Hollyday,
Slicer, Fitzpatrick, Cockey, and Brown—38.
Negative—Messrs. Chapman, Pre'st., Morgan,
Blakistone, Dent, Hopewell, Ricaud, Lee, Cham-
bers of Kent, Mitchell, Donaldson, Dorsey, Wells,
Randall, Kent, Weems, Bond, Brent of Charles,
Merrick, Jenifer, Howard, J. Dennis, J.U. Dennis,
Crisfield, Dashiell, Williams, Hicks, Hodson, Golds-
borough. Eccleston, Phelps, Bowie, Tuck, Sprigg,
McCubbin, Howling, Grason, Dirickson. Mc-
Master, Hearn, Fooks, Jacobs, Gwinn, Stewart,
of Baltimore city, Brent, of Baltimore city, Sher-
wood, of Baltimore city, Ware, Schley, Fiery,
Neill, John Newcomer, Davis, Kilgour, Brewer,
Waters, Anderson, Smith, Parke, and Shower—
58.
The question was then stated to be on the
amendment offered by Mr. JOHNSON.
Mr. JOHNSON. My original proposition was to
district all the counties of the State, the smallest
as well as the largest. I therefore prefer that a
vote should be taken upon that proposition, with
the proviso of my original proposition. In the
event of that proposition failing, I will move the
proposition which is in writing at the clerk's
desk, as an amendment to the proposition of the
gentleman from Kent. If these two are carried |
or voted down, then the question will recur on
the amendment of the gentleman from Kent.
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent I suggest whether
the gentleman had not better make his proposi-
tion perfect, as he proposes it. I say so, because
although it is not my proposition, nor is it per-
haps one that I would adopt, as a matter of choice;
understanding as I do, from gentlemen who bet-
ter know the sense of the Convention than I do,
that the proposition to district the city of Balti-
more alone is not likely to obtain a majority, I
mean to vote for the gentleman's proposition as
the next best that I can get. I hope the gentle-
man will put his proposition in a perfect form.
Mr. JENIFER moved to amend the amendment
of Mr. JOHNSON, by adding at the end thereof,
the following:
"Provided where a county has but two dele-
gates it shall not be divided into districts."
Mr. TUCK. I cannot vote to divide my county
into three districts. I do not believe that the
people will be satisfied with the measure. I see
no good that can result from it. I have said, and
I say again, if gentlemen from the larger counties,
desire a division of their own counties, I shall
not oppose it. Let them take the responsibility
of the division. The division should not, in my
judgment, give any district less than two mem-
bers. But, I cannot see how the proposed division
is to benefit the small counties. You make
each district a separate political community, and
probably will break up the harmony that should
prevail in all the counties among the people in all
sections.
Gentlemen say that such a mode of represen-
tation is the true republican doctrine. If it is
done now upon this ground, we shall not be many
years without representation according to popu-
lation in all parts of the State. In view of the
importance of the measure, and the sudden man-
ner in which it has been presented, he would pre-
fer to let things remain as they are for the pre-
sent, Some of the counties are already small
enough, and to make them smaller, as far as re-
presentation is concerned, can result in no pre-
sent good, and may do harm now or hereafter.
Mr, THOMAS. I think it is very well known
throughout this body, that the object my colleague
is aiming at, has been one that I have felt a great
deal of interest in, and covers the whole subject.
I have made repeated appeals to gentlemen of
this body, one now in my eye, (Mr. Chambers,)
and the gentleman from the county of Charles,
(Mr. Merrick,) to produce something like a con-
cert and co-operation among us, with a view to
lay off and divide the State into separate elective
districts, for the choice of delegates to the Legis-
lature. I am for that proposition now, but I am
free to say that I am standing in a very awkward
attitude to vote for it in the shape in which my
colleague lays it before us.
The proposition of the gentleman from Kent,
has prescribed boundary lines and divisions of
districts to place upon the face of the Constitu-
tion, if it is adopted. The other proposition has
more of these advantages. It is a mere abstract
declaration that the State ought to be divided |
