Kent, Sellman, Brent of Charles, Merrick, Jen-
ifer, Howard, Bell, Chandler, Ridgely, Lloyd,
Dickinson, Sherwood of Talbot, Colston, Hicks,
Hodson, Eccleston, Chambers of Cecil, McCullough,
McLane, Sprigg, Bowling, Spencer,
Hearn, Fooks, Thomas, Shriver, Johnson, Gaith-
er, Biser, Annan, McHenry, Magraw, Gwinn,
Stewart of Baltimore city, Brent of Baltimore
city, Sherwood of Baltimore city, Ware, Schley,
Fiery, Neill, John Newcomer, Harbine, Michael
Newcomer, Davis, Brewer, Anderson, Weber,
Fitzpatrick, Smith, Shower, Cockey and Brown
—63.
Negative—Messrs. Morgan, Weems, Bond, Bu-
chanan, Welch, John Dennis, James U. Dennis,
Crisfield, Dashiell, Williams, Goldsborough,
Phelps, Miller, Bowie, Tuck, McCubbin, Grason,
George, Wright, Dirickson, McMaster, Jacobs,
Sappington, Stephenson, Nelson, Carter, Thaw-
ley, Stewart, of Caroline, Kilgour, Waters, Hol-
lyday and Parke—31.
So the amendment was adopted.
The question then recurred upon the adoption
of he amendment as amended.
Mr. JOHNSON moved for a division of the ques-
tion upon each branch of said amendment, stating
that he would vote for the first part, but that he
would not vote for the part specifying the dis-
tricts.
The question was then put on the first branch
of said amendment, being in these words:
"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.
Mr. BOWIE. Allow me to ask my friend from
Frederick, whether he means that the remainder
of the section of the gentleman from Kent, shall
be stricken out, and that we shall merely vote
on the abstraction that Baltimore city is to be
divided into districts.
The PRESIDENT stated that any remarks which
would have an argumentative tendency, would
be out of order.
The question was then stated to be on agree-
ing to the first branch of the amendment.
Mr. JOHNSON moved the question be taken by
yeas and nays,
Which being ordered,
Appeared as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Chapman, pres't., Mor-
gan, Dent, Hopewell, Ricaud, Lee, Chambers
of Kent, Mitchell, Donaldson, Dorsey, Wells,
Randall, Kent, Weems, Bond, Brent of Charles,
Merrick, Jenifer, Ridgely, John Dennis, James
U. Dennis, Dashiell, Williams, Hicks, Hodson,
Goldsborough, Eccleston, Phelps, Bowie, Tack,
Sprigg, McCubbin, Bowling, Dirickson, McMas-
ter, Hearn, Fooks, Jacobs, Thomas, Johnson,
Gaither. Annan, McHenry, Magraw, Schley,
Fiery, Neill, John Newcomer, Davis, Kilgour,
Waters, Smith and Cockey—53.
Negative—Messrs. Howard, Buchanan, Bell,
Welch, Chandler, Lloyd, Dickinson, Sherwood
of Talbot, Colston, Chambers of Cecil, McCul- |
lough, Miller, McLane, Spencer, Grason, George,
Wright, Shriver, Biser, Sappington, Stephenson,
Nelson, Carter, Thawley, Stewart of Caroline,
Gwinn, Stewart of Baltimore city, Brent of Bal-
timore city, Sherwood of Baltimore city, Ware,
Harbine, Michael Newcomer, Brewer, Ander-
son, Weber, Hollyday, Fitzpatrick, Parke,
Shower and Brown—40.
So the first branch of the amendment was
adopted.
The question then recurred on agreeing to the
second branch of the amendment, which is in
these words:
"As follows, the first and second wards as
now laid off shall constitute the district No. 1;
the third and fourth wards district No. 2; the
fifth and sixth wards district 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. CHAMBERS, of Kent, demanded the yeas
and nays,
Which were ordered,
And being taken, resulted as follows:
Affirmative— Messrs. Chapman, Pres't, Morgan,
Dent, Hopewell, Ricaud, Lee, Chambers of Kent,
Mitchell, Donaldson, Dorsey, Wells, Randall,
Kent, Weems, Bond, Brent of Charles, Merrick,
Jenifer, John Dennis, James U. Dennis, Dashiell,
Williams, Hicks, Hodson, Goldsborough, Eccle-
ston, Phelps, Bowie, Tuck, Sprigg, McCubbin,
Bowling, Dirickson, McMaster, Hearn, Fooks,
Jacobs, Fiery, John Newcomer, Davis, Kilgour,
Waters and Smith—43.
Negative—Messrs. Howard, Buchanan, Bell,
Welch, Chandler, Ridgely, Lloyd, Dickinson,
Sherwood of Talbot, Colston, Chambers of Cecil,
McCullough, Miller, McLane, Spencer, Grason,
George, Wright, Thomas, Shriver, Johnson, Gaither,
Biser, Annan, Sappington, Stephenson, Mc-
Henry, Magraw, Nelson, Carter, Thawley, Stew-
art of Caroline, Gwinn, Stewart of Baltimore
city, Brent of Baltimore city, Sherwood of Bal-
timore city, Ware, Schley, Neill, Harbine, Mich-
ael Newcomer, Brewer, Anderson, Weber, Hol-
lyday, Fitzpatrick, Parke, Shower, Cockey and
Brown—50.
So the second branch of the amendment was
rejected.
The question then recurred on the third branch
of the amendment, being in these words;
"And that each county in the State be divided
into as many convenient election districts of con-
tiguous territory, and as nearly equal in popula-
tion as may be, as such county may be entitled to
members of the House of Delegates, and each of
said districts shall be entitled to elect one dele-
gate, provided that each county and city shall be
divided into separate election districts of compact
contiguous territory, in the manner hereafter to
be provided in this Constitution; the qualified vo-
ters in each of which districts shall at the time
and in the manner in which delegates are chosen
elect on delegate, who has for one year next be- |
