tribunal, to avail themselves of the last hour, to
retrace their steps, where injustice is the consequence
of a failure to do so. It is never too late
to be just. If that is not an axiom that approve
itself to every man's moral sense, it would be a
waste of my breath and of your time to under-
take to demonstrate it.
But what is the fact with regard to the lateness
of the hour. This vote occurred on the first day
of April. It had not passed this body one-tenth
part of an hour by your clock, before the notice
of a motion to reconsider was given. The very
next entry upon the journal, is the notice of this
motion. There is not a paper in the State that
publishes the proceedings of this body, that did
not announce it. There is not a member of this
body that was ignorant of it. I take it for
granted, that no member of this body supposed
that it had been for a moment lost sight of. it
has been postponed merely in order to deal fairly
with the body, and to have it acted upon by a full
house. And now, because it was not called up
when the house was not full, we are told that the
occasion has passed by. I had no cause to anti-
cipate such an answer as that. Very sure am I
of one fact, that if this proposition had been
called up when the house was thin, there would
have been no lack of language to indicate the
impropriety and indelicacy of such a proceeding.
We should have been reminded of it often enough
to have distinctly comprehended the idea that it
was far from ungenerous for the gentleman from
Kent to take that advantage. It would have been
ascribed to me as one of those political ma-
noeuvres sometimes practiced in political bodies,
and which I did not choose to have attributed to
me with justice. Slander, of all things upon the
face of the earth, is the last thing to be arrested
in its course—the last thing which you can pre-
vent from being harboured and entertained—for
of all sorts of fugitives, this alone can never be
recaptured and reclaimed.
But why is it too late? We took up the judi-
ciary hill the other day. There are other bills
to pass upon. Is it too late to pass upon those
bills? In my judgment although it produces much
more excitement, it is no more to be compared
in its importance with the judiciary bill, than a
mole-hill to a mountain.
Your judiciary is to adjust the lights to life,
liberty, property, reputation, of the whole peo-
ple. Yet it is not too late to consider that. I
assume that the debate upon the question of rep-
resentation will end here. No gentleman respon-
ded to the invitation to continue it. Why then
should we not take the votes? We can take a
great many votes especially under the whip and
spir as we are now.
I say, then, that the fact, if it existed, is not at
all competent to meet the objection; and in the
next place, it is an imaginary fabric. Will you
go home and tell your constituents, that you have
got an unjust Constitution, violating their rights,
sacrificing their interests, and opposed to every
man's sense of justice? And when they ask you
why you permitted it to be so, will you reply—
we had not time to do any better? I do not think |
it requires a great deal of intelligence to under-
stand that a man would better do nothing than
be engaged in mischief. You have one of two
alternatives. Take the time or cease your labor.
Nothing can Justify you in either a political
or moral point of view for doing injustice to
the people of the State whose rights you profess
to take care of.
I did hope and calculate upon the assistance of
those who believe the present plan to be wrong.
Those gentlemen who wish to increase the the
delegation from Charles county should vote for
the reconsideration. Those gentlemen who wish
to do justice to Montgomery county should vote
for it. Those who suppose the plan for any rea-
son to be unjust should vote it. Those gentle-
men who wish the city of Baltimore districted
should also come to its aid. And thus I thought
we should reconsider almost by general con-
sent.
One word as to districting the city of Balti-
more. The gentleman from Baltimore city asks
why we do not apply the same principle to the
counties. The people of Maryland are divided
into small portions already by the counties. If
there were any county containing 170,000 inhab-
itants, so that in one community 85,000 had no
voice in the legislature of the State, there would
certainly be a propriety in districting that county.
Mr. BRENT. I understand then the proposition
is this: that because you unjustly separate Balti-
more city from the counties in taking a different
ratio, you have a right to perpetuate an additional
injustice in creating districts.
Mr. CHAMBERS. The gentleman may so un-
derstand; but I am not responsible for his under-
standing.
Mr. BRENT. I was asking for information
whether that is the principle?
Mr. CHAMBERS. My ground is this: that from
the separate and concentrated condition of Bal-
more, in comparison with the counties, its char-
acter is peculiar. Its influence pervades (he
the whole State. It is like the veins and arteries.
of the human system: there is not a spot in
which the circulation does not go from and re-
turn to the heart. Baltimore city would thus
have greater influence with but five representa-
tives than any county in the State with fifteen.
If the number of representatives be not reduc-
ed and the districting system be applied to the
city, it is to be justified on the ground that the
minority there is so large in amount as to dis-
tinguish it from the minorities in the counties.
No system can be adopted which will not leave
some minorities unrepresented. It is a question
of numbers and expediency and the case of the
city is distinguishable from the counties.
These are my views, which have led me to be-
lieve that Baltimore is not entitled to so large a
representation, and that it ought to be districted.
I have endeavored to carry out these opinions,
always keeping in view the great rule—"the.
greatest good to the greatest number"—having
so done, if I find myself in the minority, I can
submit with as good a grace and, as cheerful re- |
