people sent us here, as a business Convention. If
so, why has that gentleman not been here to as-
sist us with his votes and counsel, through the
long and arduous struggles of the session?—
We had had little or no aid from him, and
now he comes here when some arrange-
ment has been made about a compromise, and
undertakes not only to force the measure through
the Convention, but to prostrate every man who
may stand up and express his sentiments in op-
position. I do regard it as extraordinary that
the gentleman should put himself forward to de-
nounce me and my principles, but it is immate-
rial to me. I have my opinions, and will main-
tain them.
The gentleman has said, that he supposes I
only intended a figure of speech, when I referred
the small counties to the fate of Charles the first,
and threatened them with the axe and block and
he could not conceive how I could bring them to
the block, unless by some violent and sanguinary
revolution, which would be wholly inconsistent
with the character of my office, as the high law offi-
cer of the State. I can solemnly declare that I
never dreamt of such athing as force or violence,
when making those remarks, and it seems to me
that it is uncharitable to place such a construc-
tion on them
The gentleman has further said, that he could
not conceive, by what sort of civil revolution the
people of Baltimore could rise up and bring the
small counties to the block. I should think my
meaning could be easily understood. I intended
to signify, that if a compromise fair and just in
itself were not made now, the force of public
opinion and public sentiment—the same public
sentiment which had brought the people to the
long denied privilege of electing their Governor,
and which, after years of struggle, had brought
about this Convention—the same public opinion
would spread all over the State, until finally the
small counties would, at some future day, lose
the opportunity which now presents ilself, of re-
taining their control in the Senate. Such a com-
promise would now be hailed by acclamation
but if you utterly deny to-day the rights of
the people, and refuse them representation in
either branch of the Legislature, to-morrow the
people may have the power to deny you any com-
promise whatever. I never meant any other re
volution which should bring the small counties
to the block, but that revolution which is brought
about by the force of public opinion, which in
my humble judgment, is more powerful than an
army marching with banners. That gentleman's
own experience should have told him that there
was a power above the laws, because it is a
power to change the laws—that power is a
public, opinion based on truth and justice. It
may be slow in its progress, but it is certain
and inevitable. The gentleman, (Mr. Howard,)
has also said that I have twice called this compromise
of Mr, FIERY'S, "a crumb." Can I not
dare to express my opinion? Yes, sir, I again
call it "a crumb from the rich man's table." We
are told by the gentleman, that twenty-five years
ago, I would not have thought ten delegates to
Baltimore ''a crumb."' But I am not speaking |
the sentiment of twenty-five years ago—but the
progressive wants of the present generation who
cast no look backwards, but have their eyes fix-
ed upon equality and right as objects which they
mean to have.
The gentleman, (Mr. Howard,) has explained
that representation according to population,
meant only the recognition of the right of superior
population, but that the ratio by which represen-
tation was to be carried out was arbitrary, and
it was not necessary that it should be uniform.
He has also said, that Mr. FIERY'S compromise
was a clear recognition of the rights of superior
population, because it gives to Baltimore city a
greater number of delegates than the largest
county.
If the mere recognition of the right of superior
population is what is meant by representation
according to population, then I am no reformer,
because I not only require the recognition of
that right, but that representation shall be based
on some uniform ratio throughout the whole
State.
Mr. HOWARD explained, that he meant to say,
and what he did say, was, that this compromise
recognised the principle. He did not mean to
say it was representation according to popula-
tion, but merely that it recognised the principle,
because it admitted the claims of superior popu-
lation.
Mr. BRENT. It recognises the principle. "It
keeps the word of promise to the ear, but breaks
it to the hope." But the gentleman did say that
the ratio was arbitrary and need not be uniform.
Mr. HOWARD. Certainly, sir.
Mr. BRENT. I think the true principle and
the only principle, is to lake a ratio and apply it
to the whole people of the State as an uniform
thing.
In this Washington county compromise, we
find a principle adopted for the counties—a ratio
of one delegate to every six thousand inhabitants,
hut it is utterly disregarded when it comes to
Baltimore city. In fact, this compromise cuts
its own throat, because it violates the principle
which it proclaims for one portion of the people.
When gentlemen talk of representation accord-
ing to population, and will not adopt an uniform
ratio, they speak of something which I confess I
do not understand.
Gen. Howard has declared that the gentleman
from Anne Arundel, (Mr. Dorsey,) had correctly
stated the proposition in his remarks, when he
said that all interests and classes should be rep-
resented. Why, sir, the plan of Mr, DORSEY
proposes to give one delegate to each county and
the city of Baltimore for territory, so as to repre-
sent territory. Does the gentleman from Balti-
more county, (Mr. Howard,) mean to endorse
that proposition ?
Mr. HOWARD. Certainly not. I did not say
so, I said that the gentleman from Anne Arun-
del, inasmuch as he said that all the interests of
society should have representation, was correct,
Mr. BRENT. I only desire to clearly under-
stand the gentleman's remarks. Nobody denies
that the popular branch, at least, of the Legisla-
ture should be open to all the interests of the |
