gentleman looked to the ulterior consequence
which would necessarily follow, a general rep-
resentation on the broad basis of population.
He (Mr. B.) did not say he looked to that, but
he would say that no member could have conceived
or planned a more certain scheme, or one
so necessarily leading to a result of this sort,
than this very scheme of districting the State.
It would have that effect unquestionably. The
gentleman, however, might not have so intended
it. He might not desire to have a representation
in the lower house on the broad basis of popula-
tion, including Baltimore city. He has frequently
disavowed any such doctrine, but he [Mr. B.]
could only say that the gentleman had played
directly into the hands of the gentlemen from
Baltimore city, [Messrs. Brent and Gwinn.]—
And, he [Mr. B,] was surprised that those gen-
tlemen had not come out in favor of the plan.
He had understood, however, that the gentleman
from Baltimore city, [Mr. Brent,] had declared
that if representation should be according to dis-
tricts, he would go for it.
Now, he had made these remarks, because
yesterday, in the hurry of the moment, coming
from another theatre, and his mind being occu-
pied with another subject, he was induced to
vote for a similar proposition, which on reflec-
tion, his judgment condemned, and he thought
it his solemn duty to warn gentleman represen-
ting counties here, that in his humble opinion,
it would necessarily lead to representation ac-
cording to population, if we undertook to aban-
don representation by counties.
Remarks of Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city, Friday,
May 2, 1851.
Mr. BRENT of Baltimore city, observed that
he had a few words to say in reply to the gen-
tleman from Prince George's, (Mr. Bowie.) He
desired to state in a few words his views, as to
the combined proposition, for he regarded it as a
combined movement between the advocates of
districting Baltimore city alone, and those who
were willing to district Baltimore city and the
State, upon the basis established by the new
Constitution, for, if the proposition, as amended
by the gentleman from Frederick, (Mr. Thomas,)
was adopted, then there would be a combined
vote in favor of districting Baltimore city
That was the object if not the design. Now
you propose to divide and neutralize Baltimore
city's ten delegates, given under a compromise
which you forced upon her by her divided delegation;
but he thought they would not force this
districting upon her with a divided vote of he
delegation. Why, he heard eulogies here upon
the system of districting the State. He heard it
drawn from the national constitution, or from
the general government, where it had operate
successfully and harmoniously. He, however
saw no analogy between the cases. None whatever.
The district system adopted by Congress
for elections on the part of the general government,
was based upon population—federal numbers,
and he would like gentlemen to get up
|
there and show him one constitution where this
basis was not uniform throughout the State.
Could they, he asked, show him a case where
the gerrymandering process had been adopted in
a Constitution? Show him a Constitution, he
said, which had adopted an arbitrary basis of re-
presentation for one part, and an equivalent basis
for another part of a State? None could be
shown him. Now, what did gentlemen here
propose to do? They proposed by the present
scheme of adjustment to give the several counties
of the State a representation substantially
according to population, preserving a minimum
vote for the small counties. The counties of
western Maryland were given representation ac-
cording to population; but they gave Baltimore
city no such thing. Why, the gentleman from
Kent, (Mr Chambers,) proposed boldly and di-
rectly to reduce that still further—to divide and
neutralise her delegation of ten, so that her del-
egation might be divided in the House of Dele-
gates, against itself.
Now what, he asked, was the other proposition?
It was the same thing; and there was lit-
tle or no difference, and that was, to district the
other portions of the State which had a representation
according to population, and also Bal-
timore city which had not.
He, (Mr. B.,) said it was a just measure, and
if it were applied to the whole State on an uniform
basis he would vote for it. Now, he did
not mean to address gentlemen, who like the
gentleman from Prince George's, (Mr. Bowie,)
had arranged the counties into lines against the
city. He, (Mr. B.) Had never maintained those
local doctrines, but he had something to ad-
dress to gentlemen who had advocated representation
according to population, and he would say
to them: "Upon what ground was it that you
reconciled your consciences to give Baltimore
but ten delegates?" It was owing to this; it was
that Baltimore being a compact community, if
yon gave her a delegation of ten, she would
wield an influence beyond her numerical strength
That was it; and that argument had been sshoud
over and over in this hall. And, it was thus ascertained
that while she had not her full rights,
she had equal practical power in the Legislatures
Hall.
Now, he would appeal to gentlemen, who used
that argument—who preached those doctrines,
whether by dividing that delegation, they did not
neutralize even what this odious compromise
leaves her. He, however, did not rise to, argue
that proposition, for he considered the time to
argue past. He considered argument lost on
the majority of this Convention. He knew that
the gentleman from Frederick county, had been
one of the staunchest reformers. Nearly seven-
teen years ago, when just of age, he, (Mr. Brent,)
appeared in this city as a member of the very
first Reform Convention in Maryland, the gentleman
was with him then, and had been, an ear-
nest, steadfast Reformer ever since.
He knew that his friend was prepared to vote
for representation to its full extent at nay time,
if he could carry it. But we were now divided. |
