Mr. JOHNSON. I will adhere to it as a substi-
tute; because I am sure then that the vote must
be taken upon it first, and that is my sole object.
Mr. JENIFER then offered his amendment as
an amendment to the substitute, as follows:
"Provided, where a county has but two dele-
gates it shall not be divided into districts."
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city. Is it in order
to offer a substitute to the substitute?
The PRESIDENT, It is not.
Mr. BRENT. I have only to say that while I am
willing to vote for districting the State accord-
ing to population, I cannot vote for it upon the
present basis. I think this whole subject had
better be postponed until another day. I there-
fore move an adjournment.
The motion was not agreed, to.
Mr. SPENCER. It is too late an hour to enter-
tain this question, hut my reasons for being op-
posed to this system, I desire to express to this
body in a, very brief manner. I hold, in the first
place, that it is impossible for this Convention
to district the State of Maryland. You may
have what maps you please, to lay before this
body, but it is impossible to go into the coun-
ties and lay off the territories by metes and
bounds, so as to ascertain the districts. There
will have to be a commissioner in each of the
counties to lay off the districts to lay them off by
running the lines. My objection to this system
is this; that it will interfere with the elective
franchise in the counties, and for this reason.
On the same day of election, when the people
will be called upon to vote for members of
the legislature, the Governor is to be elected, the
levy courts of the counties and other elections
in which the county is interested. He may have
a residence in one district to vote for a member
of the legislature, but he may have to go to a
different place to vote for the Governor or mem-
bers of the levy court. The same thing occurs
in regard to the city of Baltimore. If you un-
dertake to district that city, you will perpetrate
upon it the greatest injustice ever committed.
Upon the laboring classes, who are constantly
changing their homes, you will inflict a great evil,
one to which I never can consent. I believe this
body baa made up its mind, and I have no dispo-
sition to keep the question open. I move the
previous question.
The demand for the previous question was
unanimously seconded, and the main question was
ordered to be now put, viz:
Will the Convention agree to the amendment
of Mr, JENIFER, to the substitute of Mr. JOHN-
SON?
Mr. JENIFER moved that the question be taken
by yeas and nays;
Which being ordered,
Appeared as follows;
Affirmative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't., Mor-
gan, Blakistone, Dent, Hopewell, Ricaud, Lee,
Chambers, of Kent, Mitchell, Dorsey, Wells,
Randall, Kent, Weems, Bond, Brent, of Charles,
Merrick, Jenifer, Dickinson Colston, James U.
Dennis, Crisfield, Dashiell, Williams, Hodson, |
Goldsborough, Bowie, Tuck, Sprigg, McCubbin,
Bowling, Wright, Dirickson, McMaster, Hearn,
Fooks, Jacobs, Davis, Kilgour and Waters—40.
Negative— Messrs. Donaldson, Sellman, How-
ard, Buchanan, Bell, Welch, Chandler, Ridgely,
Lloyd. Sherwood, of Talbot, John Dennis, Hicks,
Eccleston, Phelps, Chambers, of Cecil, McCul-
lough, Miller, McLane, Spencer, George, Thomas,
Shriver, Gaither, Biser, Annan, Sappington
Stephenson, McHenry, Magraw, Nelson, Carter
Thawley, Stewart, of Caroline, Gwinn, Stewart,
of Baltimore city, Brent, of Baltimore city, Ware
Schley, Fiery, Neill, John Newcomer, Harbine
Michael Newcomer, Brewer, Anderson, Weber
Hollyday, Slicer, Fitzpatrick, Smith, Parke
Shower, Cockey and Brown—54.
So the amendment was rejected
Mr. BLAKISTONE gave notice that he should
move to reconsider the vote of the Convention
just taken on said amendment.
The question then recurred upon the adoption
of the substitute offered by Mr. JOHNSON, for the
amendment proposed by Mr. CHAMBERS, of
Kent.
Mr. BROWN moved for a division of the ques-
tion on the motion to strike out and insert.
The question was therefore first stated to be
upon the motion lo strike out.
Mr. BROWN moved the question be taken by
yeas and nays;
And being ordered,
Appeared as follows:
Affirmative— 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, Sappington,
Stephenson, McHenry, Magraw, Nelson,
Carter, Thawley, Stewart, of Caroline, Gwinn
Stewart, of Baltimore city. Brent, of Baltimore
city, Sherwood, of Baltimore city Ware, Schley
Neill, John Newcomer, Harbine, Michael New-
comer, Brewer, Anderson, Weber, Hollyday
Slicer, Fitzpatrick, Parke, Shower, Cockey and
Brown—53.
Negative— 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, Fiery, Davis, Kilgour
Waters and Smith—43.
So the Convention agreed to strike out.
The question then recurred on the adoption of
the amendment as offered by Mr. JOHNSON.
Mr. MERRICK moved that the question be taken
by yeas and nays ;
Which being ordered,
Appeared as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't., Mor-
gan, Blakistone, Dent, Hopewell, Ricaud, Lee
Chambers, of Kent, Donaldson, Dorsey, Wells
Randall, Kent, Bond, Brent, of Charles, Merrick" |
