fore his election been a resident of the district
from which he shall be elected; and the residence
in a district requisite to give a right of suffrage,
shall be six months next preceding the election ;
bit in case any voter otherwise qualified shall
have less than six months residence in the district
of his then residence, he shall not thereby lose
his right to vote in the district in which he may
have resided for the six months next preceding
his removal."
Mr. JENIFER said that the proposition provid-
ed that the districts should he of contiguous ter-
ritory. No such provision was made in regard
to Baltimore city.
Mr. JOHNSON said that it was understood to be
contiguous, and it could be arranged hereafter.
Mr. TUCK moved for a division of the question
upon the third branch of the amendment down
to the word "Constitution," in the eighth line in-
clusive, and moved that the question be taken by
yeas and nays,
Which being ordered,
Appeared as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Donaldson, Dorsey, Ran-
dall, Sellman, Brent of Charles, Merrick, How-
ard, Bell, Welch, Chandler, Ridgely, Lloyd,
Dickinson, Sherwood of Talbot, Colston, Cham-
bers of Cecil, McCullough, McLane, Spencer,
Thomas, Shriver, Johnson, Gaither, Biser. An-
nan, McHenry, Magraw, Schley, Fiery, Neill,
John Newcomer, Harbine, Brewer, Anderson,
Weber, Smith, Cockey and Brown—38.
Negative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't, Morgan,
Dent, Hopewell, Ricaud, Lee, Chambers of Kent,
Mitchell, Wells, Kent, Weems, Bond, Jenifer,
Buchanan, John Dennis, James U. Dennis, Da-
shiell, Williams, Hicks, Hodson, Goldsborough,
Eccleston, Phelps, Miller, Bowie, Tuck, Sprigg,
McCubbin, Bowling, Grason, George, Wright,
Dirickson, McMaster, Hearn, Fooks, Jacobs,
Sappington, Stephenson, Nelson, Carter, Thaw-
ley, Stewart of Caroline, Gwinn, Stewart of Bal-
timore city, Brent of Baltimore city, Sherwood
of Baltimore city, Ware, Davis, Kilgour, Waters,
Hollyday, Fitzpatrick, Parke and Shower—55.
So the third branch of the amendment was re-
ject.
Mr. JOHNSON, with the consent of the Conven-
tion, then withdrew the fourth and last branch of
the amendment, giving notice that he should move
to reconsider the vote In relation to the district-
ing of the city of Baltimore.
Mr. MCHENRY moved the Convention recon-
sider their vote taken on the first branch of the
amendment, and said:
I voted for the first branch of this proposition
under the impression that the amendment which
was offered by the gentleman from Frederick,
was received on all sides in good faith, with the
intention of districting the whole State. I find
now that most of the gentlemen who voted for
the amendment have voted against it as a portion
of the article, and is due to myself and to
other gentlemen, that we should have an oppor-
tunity of placing our votes upon a proper foot-
ing. I could not vote to district the city of Bal-
timore alone, both because such a measure, if |
carried would be fatal to the Constitution, and
because it will be an act of unjust and oppressive
discrimination which the people of that city
ought not and will not submit to. I therefore
make the motion to reconsider.
Mr. JENIFER. The gentleman had thought
proper to defend himself from his vote; I desire
to defend myself. I voted to district the whole
State, but when I found that the amendment of-
fered by the gentleman from Frederick county had
stricken out the city of Baltimore and tied down
the counties, leaving them to bedistricted, with-
out including the city of Baltimore; which may
or may not be embraced in the pending amend-
ment, I felt compelled to vote against the whole
proposition.
Mr. JOHNSON. I was anxious to make a mo-
tion to reconsider, for the purpose of giving gen-
tlemen an opportunity, if there has been any
error, of correcting their votes. It will be re-
membered that my motion was made as an
amendment to the proposition submitted by the
gentleman from Kent. As he had made an ar-
rangement for the districting of Baltimore city,
it was not necessary, in my amendment, that I
should include that city. Hence, I struck it out
of the original proposition, because I considered
that the gentleman bad sufficiently guarded that
in his own proposition. The gentleman's propo-
sition divided the districts in Baltimore city.
That was rejected by the Convention; hence it
left the balance, without saying that the districts
should be contiguous. I took it for granted it
was his purpose to have them contiguous. I
should vote for no proposition to district Balti-
more city, to gerrymander, as it is called. I
should only vote for one that would plainly dis-
trict the city, with contiguous territory.
Mr. SPENCER. I call the attention of the Con-
vention to the fact that this very amendment pro-
vides every thing that the gentleman from Charles
requires. It is a mistake in him that it is not
provided that the districts in Baltimore should
be composed of contiguous territory.
Mr. S. read the amendment to show that it did
provide that the districts in the city of Baltimore
and in the counties, should be composed of con-
tiguous territory. It was clearly provided for.
Mr. JOHNSON. Be that as it may. Gentlemen
(and I take it for granted they speak with the can-
dor which becomes members of this Convention,)
say that they did not vote understandingly, be-
cause of the ambiguity of the propositions. I shall
vote for the motion to reconsider, and if the mo-
tion is agreed to, I shall take occasion to put it
beyond the question of doubt or cavil, that the
districts shall be of contiguous territory, both in
the counties and in the city of Baltimore.
Mr, THOMAS. It is so now.
Mr. JOHNSON. I consider it so now, but if it
is necessary to make it any stronger, I shall, if
the motion to reconsider prevails, lake good care
to settle it. I call for the previous question on
the motion to reconsider.
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent, requested the gentle-
man to withdraw the demand for the previous
question, to allow him to say a few words. |
