State for representation. But how is this to be
accomplished satisfactorily, except by taking for
representation the broad basis of numbers ?
The gentleman [Mr. Howard,] has also said
that three of my colleagues, if they have not
spoken as he has in reference to my course, have
acted by their votes as he spoke. Between my
colleagues and myself, that gentleman has no
right to stand or to place any other construction
upon their votes, than that they had voted con-
scientiously according to their sense of duty.
The representatives of the city of Baltimore
were equally divided in their votes on this com-
promise—three to three. The gentleman has
no right to draw invidious distinctions between
the three who voted for, and the three who voted
against it.
If that gentleman, [Mr. Howard,] meant justly
to charge me with defeating the dearest wishes of
my constituents, why did he not make the same
charge against my two colleagues who voted
with me? His omission to do so, looks as if he
had some personal object in view.
Mr. HOWARD. I have understood that those
gentlemen intended to come into the support of
this proposition.
Mr. GWINN hoped the gentleman would allow
him to explain. He said, that he felt himself
rather unexpectedly dragged into the discussion
by no intimation of any possible vote he might
give ill relation to a proposition not before the
Convention.
He had only to say, as he had before observed,
that he regarded no Constitution which this Con-
vention might adopt as in any way wise, just or
equitable, which was not based, both in the
Senate and in the House of Delegates, upon
population only, nor would any Constitution
which they might adopt meet with his moral or
intellectual assent, if these principles should be
overlooked.
He had said, as he would say now, in order
that his own opinions might be fully and clearly
understood, that if he ever, under any circum-
stances, voted for any proposition which did not
embody these essential principles, it would not
be because he compromised or meant to com-
promise the principle, in any way, or assented to
the justice or equity of the proposed arrangement
but only that he might do all that lay in his pow-
er to give the people of his native city an oppor-
tunity of voting upon the most liberal Constitu-
tion, which could be wrung from an unwilling
Convention. In so doing he would reserve to
himself the privilege of determining, when the
whole instrument was perfected, whether it was
worth submitting to the people he represented,
the responsibility of that final vote he would
cheerfully assume.
But he felt no hesitation in saying, that if he
ever cast a vote for a plan less popular than that
embodying the principle of population only. he
should feel neither gratitude, nor sense of obliga-
tion; but. in assenting to such an arrangement,
would assume the responsibility, only because
the relative strength of his city would be increas-
ed, and it would be hereafter more able to com- |
mand in the next decade, or from the next gen-
eration, that extreme justice which your tardi-
ness or fear may now refuse to award her.
He did not design to speak again upon this
question, but was willing to deal frankly with all
who alluded to, or interrogated him, concerning
his course.
Mr. BRENT. I do not trouble myself to know
whether my colleagues are going to change their
votes. I look at the record, and there it will be
seen that two of my colleagues voted with me.
This is before the public. Again: I will say that
I have a right to suppose that the gentleman
from Baltimore county, [Mr. Howard,] has sin-
gled me out from my colleagues, who were
equally guilty, with a view to gratify some per-
sonal object.
The gentleman had better wait until he sees
that my colleagues have changed their votes.—
But be that as it may, I shall not shrink, even if I
stand alone, I have a right to stand upon my
conscience and my responsibility to my constit-
uents. The position I now hold, I had taken
clearly and explicitly as far back as the 5th of
February last. as the Register of Debates will
show, and indeed I had taken the same position
as this Convention well recollect, before Christ-
mas, when we had no reporter of debates.
My respect for that gentleman's services to
his country, and for his years, entitles me to
say that whatever may be our personal relations,
I cannot suppose that he designs to place him-
self before this Convention, in the attitude of
making a personal attack to force his opinions
on me.
That gentleman had not only undertaken to
lecture me for my course, but he has publicly
told my three colleagues who voted for Mr.
FIERY'S compromise, "that they must vote
against the amendment, of which I gave notice,
securing representation according to population."
That gentleman had censured me, because I
did not concur in his opinions, but I hold myself
responsible to my constituents and not to that
gentleman.
I cannot see how it was or why it was, that
the gentleman desired to censure me for
pursuing consistently and conscientiously the
course I have always taken in this Convention
upon this great question of popular rights, and
which I mean to maintain to the end, regardless
of that gentleman's approval or disapproval.
Mr. HOWARD remarked, that he would not
trouble the Convention if it did not relate to him
personally. The gentleman had alluded to his ab-
sence from the Convention. It was upon this
subject that he desired to say a few words, in or-
der that he might disclaim all want of respect by
being absent so much He desired to say that in
the county convention, after the nomination took
place, and where there was a large assemblage
of persons from the different districts, when his
name was put in nomination, he proclaimed from
the hustings that he had engagements which were
paramount to all others, and which could not be
sacrificed, and that if they chose to elect him,
they must allow him to comply with these en- |
