relation to this matter, he had but little to add.
It would be recollected that on a former occasion
he had the honor to submit a rule by which a
vote previously given should be reversed and re-
scinded by a smaller number than that by which
the first vote passed. He read the rule proposed
by him, to be found page 242 Debates. He had
then agreed with those who had opposed his mo-
tion on the general ground of leaving open to
the last moment every avenue by which we could
escape error and arrive at just conclusions. It
was proper that what was done should express
the most deliberate opinions of this body, and after
the maturest reflection. He had differed with
those gentlemen who usually act with the gentle-
man from Frederick, as to the mode of carrying
out the general principle. It had appeared to
him that a principle of fairness and political pro-
priety and integrity, required a minority to for-
bear over-ruling a majority—that in fact if a vote
were to pass to day by a majority of a full house,
and were reversed by & bare majority of a thin
house some days hence, that this last vote could
not properly be regarded as the sense and opinion
of the Convention, and ought not to stand as the
expression of that opinion. His proposition
however, was denounced, end in no very measured
terms, as would appear from the debate which
fortunately is now published. That debate would
show that the most unlimited licence, and to the
latest hour, to reconsider and view its action was
claimed for the Convention. Sme material
change seems to have passed over the dreams of
certain gentlemen: we are not longer to have the
benefit of our last thoughts on matters before us.
Well, sir, said Mr. C., I have only to say, Island
precisely where I did on the 18th March last.
Only protect us against a surprise, by which a
smaller number of votes may over-rule and defect
the action of a larger number, and I am contented
to keep open the way to improve till the last hour
of the session.
DISTRICTING SYSTEM.
Remarks of Mr. CHAMBERS, Thursday, May
1, 1851.
Mr. CHAMBERS said he had been constantly
expecting a movement on the part of the gentle-
man from Frederick, (Mr. Thomas,) in refer-
ence to this districting system. That gentle-
man had long since taken the necessary prelimi-
nary steps, had obtained an order to supply plots
and estimates, which were now furnished, and
for several days past, he [Mr. C.,] had anticipa-
ted some action pursuant to this preparation.
There are a number of us, said Mr. C., who de-
sire to test the sense of the house upon the pro-
position to district the city of Baltimore alone,
What the opinion is, can only be determined by
a deliberate vote. We have a right to ascertain
that opinion, and desire to do so. if a majority
of the Convention shall befound to entertain the
opinion, it is but fair to allow an opportunity for
its expression. Why the necessity for a refer-
ence? Surely every man here has by this time
a fixed opinion as to the principle. If a major- |
ity shall not favor the scheme of districting the
city, it will be but a waste of time to employ a
committee to report on digest details. Let us
come fairly and boldly to the principal question,
"shall the district system prevail or not," and
show our hands, and if a majority shall deter-
mine in its favor, then it will be quite time
enough to have a committee to arrange details.
Mr. C. thought it capable of demonstration
that the theory of the gentleman from Freder-
ick, [Mr. Thomas,] will not sustain his conclusions.
His principle is that minorities should
be represented, and that the system of distric-
ting will be the means of accomplishing this
effect; his inference is, that there is the same
propriety in respect to minorities in the counties
as there is in the city.
The general proposition that minorities should
be represented, like all other general proposi-
tions, is subject to some limitation. This is but
another instance in which it is manifest how
much ' danger there is in pursuing an abstract
proposition as universally true, regardless of
time, place or circumstance. To be usefully
reduced to practice, all such general truths re-
quire modification. The doctrine is, that mi-
norities ought to be represented; but it is certain
all minorities cannot possibly be represented.—
Let it be assumed that every county in the
State shall be divided into districts, as the gen-
tleman would have them to be, are there not
minorities still unrepresented in each of these
districts? You may go on and reduce the divis-
ions to the size of the smallest election district,
yet the case is the same, there will still be un-
represented minorities. There must then, of
necessity, be some modification of the rule in
its practical application. In other words, there
must be some point, at which in estimating the
amount or numbers of the particular minority,
we must cease to apply the rule; that is to say,
it is a question of expediency for the wise con-
sideration of the Convention. We must either
abandon the role entirely, which it is admilted
out not to be done, or we must apply it in some
cases and not in all cases.
The question is where shall we stop? The
city of Baltimore is distinguishable from any
county in the State, in several particulars to jus-
tify us in applying the rule to her and not to the
counties. She has a minority of nearly one half
her entire population, a minority of more than
eighty thousand. No county has any thing to
compare to it in amount.
Again, her districts are already laid off. The
same sense of justice to this large minority
which ought to actuate us, has induced the city
authorities to have these minorities represented
in their local legislature. For these and other
reasons which he had previously urged, be
thought it wise to stop at districting the city.—
Other gentlemen thought the largest counties
might also be made subject to the same system,
while the gentleman from Frederick thought all
the counties should be in the same case.
Yet it must be perfectly obvious that it was
utterly impracticable to represent all minorities, |
