Mr. SPRIGG, when his name was called, also
stated that he had paired off and could not vote
on the question.
The question was then stated to be on agree-
ing to the substitute offered by Mr. THOMAS, in
the following words:
"In order that each and every portion of the
State may be fairly represented, and its various
interests protected in the Legislature, for the
purpose of electing delegates therein, each coun-
ty in the State and the city of Baltimore shall be
divided into separate election districts of com-
pact, contiguous territory, in the manner here-
after to be provided in this Constitution; the
qualified voters in each of which districts shall
at the time and in the manner in which delegates
are chosen, elect one delegate, who has for one
year next before his election been a resident of
the district from which he shall be elected; and
the residence in a district, requisite to give a
right of suffrage shall he six months next pre-
ceeding the election; but in case any voter, oth-
erwise qualified, shall have less than six months
residence in the district of his then residence,
he shall not thereby lose his right to vote in the
district in which he may have resided for six
months next preceding his removal."
Mr. THOMAS, moved that the question be taken
by yeas and nays, which being ordered,
Appeared as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Blakistone, Hopewell,
Ricaud, Donaldson, Dorsey, Wells, Randall,
Kent, Brent, of Charles, Merrick, Jenifer, Bell,
Chandler, Ridgely, Fooks, Thomas. Johnson,
Gaither, Annan, McHenry, Fiery, Neill, John
Newcomer, Harbine, Brewer, Weber, Smith
and Cockey—28.
Negative— Messrs. Chapman, President, Mor-
gan, Dent, Lee, Chambers, of Kent, Sellman,
Weems, Dalrymple, Howard, Buchanan, Welch,
Lloyd, Sherwood, of Talbot, Colston, John Den-
nis, Williams, Hicks, Goldsborough, Eccleston,
Phelps, Constable, Chambers, of Cecil, Miller,
McLane, Bowie, McCubbin, Bowling, Spencer,
Grason, George, Dirickson, McMaster, Hearn,
Jacobs, Shriver, Sappington, Stephenson, Ma-
graw, Nelson, Carter, Thawley, Stewart of
Caroline, Hardcastle, Gwinn, Stewart, of Bait.
city, Sherwood, of Bait. city, Prestman, Ware
Michael Newcomer, Davis, Kilgour, Waters
Anderson, Hollyday, Fitzpatrick, Parke, Shower
and Brown—58.
So the Convention refused to adopt the sub-
stitute.
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent. then offered the following
amendment as an independent proposition
"That the Legislature at its first session after
this Constitution shall proceed to lay off the several
counties into as many election districts a
they are respectively entitled to delegates in the
General Assembly, one of which said delegate
shall be elected in each of said districts; an
shall also divide the city of Baltimore into ten
districts of contigous wards and as nearly a
may be of equal population, and each of said
districts shall be entitled to elect one delegate to
the General Assembly." |
Mr. C. stated that he would not vote for the
first branch of the proposition. He offered it to
bring both questions nakedly, distinctly, and in-
dividually before the House, and he would now
do what he never expected to do. He would.
ask the previous question without the least in-
tention to arrest debate, but simply to secure a
vote upon this proposition independently. He
should have them divided, and if any gentlemen
could suggest a fairer mode, he would adopt it.
Mr. C, withdrew the previous question at the
request of
Mr. PRESSTMAN who moved for a division of
the question upon the amendment.
Mr. THOMAS remarked that he had stood ill
such a relation to this question that he barely
wished to say that he could not vote for this pro-
position, and upon this ground; he could not
agree that the Legislature should district the
State of Maryland, and for the very obvious
reason, that the delegates to the Legislature were
to be elected in November, before the districts
should be laid off, and they could not lay off dis-
tricts for themselves. Gentlemen must under-
stand that this was not an old Legislature, but a
new one. But in any event, he would not part
with this power from the Convention, to give it
to the Legislature.
Mr. JOHNSON was in favor of districting the
State, and he was unwilling, as a member of this
Convention, and as a citizen of the State of Mary-
land, to suppose that he could not place sufficient
integrity in the next Legislature, old or new, to
divide this State into proper districts. He dif-
fered with his colleague upon this point. He re-
garded that there was as much honor in the Le-
gislature as here. If the principle was right, this
Convention should settle it; and if they had not
the time to mature the details, they should not
abandon it, but they should trust to those men
whom the people would elect—honest and hono-
rable men enough to fill their places in a different
capacity and department—that of the Legislature.
The principle was right or wrong. If it was
right, he would be willing to stay here a month,
for the purpose of settling it.
He was in favor of the proposition, and would
vote for the entire motion, for he was for dis-
tricting the entire State. His friend from Kent
had given intimation of another proposition
which he intended to submit, and he should go
for that. He would also vote for the proposition
of the gentleman from Baltimore county, (Mr.
Ridgely,) with this provision, thall all those
counties which had more than two delegates,
should be divided, but no county with less than
two, and instead of having ten districts in Baltimore
city, he would have five, so that each district
of that city would be equal to a small
county.
Mr. BOWIE desired the house to understand the
question, and to bring themselves, and all their
minds, and all their votes, to one single concentrated
point, and that was, whether they would
district the State or not—whether they would.
strike out the counties, and have a new district
representation on this floor. He had said, here- |
