vention which looked to party, or to anything
else than the true interests of the State, He
should adhere to that principle. If they should
fail to district the city of Baltimore, it would be a
wrong to the whole State. They should be put
upon an equality with the counties.
Mr, SPENCER. Will the gentleman allow me
to inquire whether in putting Baltimore city upon
an equality with the counties, he intends to give
that city a Senator for every ward.
Mr. JENIFER replied:
That when an advocate of that principle should
come from the city of Baltimore, he would
answer his demand. He intended to have Balti-
more placed upon an equality with the counties,
and not placed before every county. The prin-
ciple now proposed divided the city of Baltimore
and the large counties, representing minorities
everywhere; and lie hoped that it would prevail.
Mr. BROWN said:
That he agreed with the gentleman from
Charles, (Mr, Jenifer,) that the true issue had
now come; but he differed with him in regard to
the nature of that issue. The question as he understood
it, was between a Constitution and no
Constitution, The Convention had been six
months making a Constitution, and if they did not
now adjourn soon, the people could not have
time to understand the Constitution, and could
not vote for it. He had voted from the com-
mencement to district the State. He should vote
for no motion to reconsider from this time for-
ward to the end of the session, upon any subject
which had been distinctly settled by this body.
He had voted to give Baltimore city an extra
judge, it had been refused, and he could not
vote to reconsider that. He should do all in his
power to bring the Convention to a close, in
order to give the people an opportunity to look
at the Constitution before being called upon to
vote upon it. He would repeat that the true issue
now was—Constitution or no Constitution.
Mr. HOWARD demanded the previous question.
Mr. RIDGELY. I respectfully ask my colleague
to allow me to put myself right before he demands
the previous question.
Mr. HOWARD withdrew his demand for the
previous question.
Mr. RIDGELY. The proposition which I hold
in my hand, and which I intended to offer at the
proper time to the House, is not exactly the pro-
position stated by the gentleman from Frederick
(Mr. Johnson.) I make no distinction whatever
between the counties in my proposition, and
I therefore wish the House to understand that
when the proper time arrives, I will explain the
basis upon which it rests. It proposes to district
all the counties, and a new districting for the city
of Baltimore only. It divides the city into four
districts, it is in that respect different from
other propositions which have been before this
body. I trust that the House will come to the
consideration of this question without any excitement.
I have come here honestly to perform a
public duty, I chose to accept the position of a
union candidate for a seat in this House.
voluntarily assumed the position, to be a no-party |
member of this Convention, and my constituents
thought proper to elect me upon that theory. I
came here with a firm, fearless determination to
perform my duty, without looking to the right
nor to the left. I think the House will bear me
witness that thus far I have pursued that course,
and with the blessing of God, I will pursue it to
the end. I, like the gentleman from Carroll,
consider the question to be, Constitution or no
Constitution. But I can rise above the influence
of party, and look as I think all should, at both
sides of the question. The gentleman may think
the Constitution is not in danger, except from
districting the city of Baltimore. I think other-
wise. There are two partics in Maryland, and
the Constitution is equally in danger from both.
I am for a Constitution, and I invoke this Con-
vention to steer between Scylla and Charybdis,
We are as likely to meet a concentrated opposi-
tion from the Whig party as from the Democratic
party in opposition to obnoxious features to
either, which may be placed in the Constitution.
If we are to be narrowed down to party lines—if
political questions are to be opened, that party
which believes political advantages are gained by
the other, will certainly oppose such a Constitution.
To avoid therefore, party opposition to
the Constitution, the State ought to be districted,
and I shall submit a proposition, if I can get the
floor, for that object, I now renew the previous
question, as promised by my colleague, who was
kind enough to withdraw it.
The previous question was seconded, and the
main question ordered, viz:
Will the Convention reconsider their vote on
the substitute offered by Mr. THOMAS?
Mr. BROWN moved that the question be taken
by yeas and nays,
Which being ordered,
Appeared as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Chapman, pres't., Mor-
gan, Blakistone, Bent, Hopewell, Ricaud, Lee,
Chambers, of Kent, Donaldson, Dorsey, Wells,
Randall, Kent, Weems, Dalrymple, Brent, of
Charles, Merrick, Jenifer, Ridgely, John Den-
nis, Williams, Hicks, Goldsborough, Eccleston,
Phelps, McCubbin, Bowling, Dirickson, Mc-
Master, Hearn, Fooks, Jacobs, Thomas, John.
son, Gaither, Annan, Fiery, Neill, John New-
comer, Davis, Kilgour, Waters, Smith and
Cockey—44.
Negative—Messrs. Sellman, Howard, Buchan-
an, Bell, Welch, Chandler, Lloyd, Sherwood of
Talbot, Colston, Constable, Miller, McLane,
Spencer, Grason, George, Shriver, Sappington,
Stephenson, McHenry, Magraw, Nelson, Carter,
Thawley, Stewart of Caroline, Hardcastle, Gwinn,
Stewart of Baltimore city, Sherwood of Baltimore
city, Presstman, Ware, Harbine, Michael
Newcomer, Brewer, Anderson, Weber, Holly-
day, Fitzpatrick, Parke, Shower and Brown—40.
So the Convention reconsidered their vote.
Mr. SHRIVER, when Mr, BISER'S name was
called on the yeas and nays just taken, rose in
his seat and desired it to be entered on the journal
that Mr. BISER had paired off with Mr.
TUCK on the question. |
