tofore, that this would lead necessarily to an ex-
tinction of the counties of the State, to an amal-
gamation of all the voters, and to a division in
the districts, and would ultimately end in repre-
sentation according to population in the Legisla-
ture. He would ask if the counties were not
Bow districted, when compared with Baltimore
city?
In that city that were 169,000 people in a mass.
Could any one show him any other point in the
whole of the State where there was a population
of 169,000 who voted in a mass? It could not
"be found. The very highest was 41,000, which
was the population of Frederick county, and
where the general ticket system prevailed. Why
did they not divide Baltimore city into districts of
five or ten, or at least into as many as would
make each of them equal to the largest county?
If they would compare the number of voters in
the counties with the number of voters in the
city, they would find that there was no county in
the State where the amount of voters exceeded
the number of voters in any two or three wards
in the city of Baltimore. Nature, if not their
ancestors, had districted the counties—their an-
cestors districted the State at large, The coun-
ties were already districts of themselves, and they
were small enough now, and when compared with
the city of Baltimore, he would ask, in regard to
the great principle which the distinguished gen-
tleman from Frederick had so ably advocated,
that minorities should be represented, he would
ask him if he wished to reduce the minorities to
a still smaller circle than they now occupied in
the counties? Baltimore was one great whirl-
pool. They had little counties here and there,
out in Baltimore there was a great circle of voters
large enough to embrace many of the smaller
ones.
Why should they not seize upon the idea, a
philosophical one, and reduce that large circle
into smaller circles? Then they would produce
that equal justice which the people had a right to
demand from the Constitution makers they had
sent here, and not until then, would they have
that equal justice. If they would carry out the
principle which his friend from Frederick advo-
cated, and in which, as he had before said, he
fully concurred, they would then have substantial
Justice, but they never could obtain it until they
districted Baltimore city, solus, as a solitary
question. As for mingling this question with mere
political questions, the idea was ridiculous, and
never, in his opinion, ought it be tolerated in this
State! He moved the previous question.
The previous question was seconded and the
main question ordered.
Mr. PRESSTMAN withdrew his motion for a division
of the question upon the amendment.
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent, renewed the motion
for a division of the question upon the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. Tuck,) decided
that the amendment was not divisible,
Mr. CHAMBERS contended that the proposition
was divisible, and appealed from the decision of
the Chair, but withdrew the appeal. |
The question was then stated to be on the
adoption of the proposition submitted by Mr.
CHAMBERS.
Mr. BROWN moved that the question be taken
by yeas and nays, which being ordered, appear-
ed as follows:
Affirmative— Messrs. Chapman, Pres't., Blakis-
tone, Dent, Hopewell, Donaldson, Dorsey, Wells,
Randall, Kent, Brent of Charles, Merrick, Jen-
ifer, Bowling, Fooks. Johnson, Gaither, Annan,
McHenry, Schley. Fiery, Neill, John Newcom-
er, Weber and Smith—25.
Negative— Messrs. Morgan, Ricaud, Lee,
Chambers of Kent, Sellman, Weems, Dalrymple,
Howard, Buchanan, Bell, Welch, Chandler,
Ridgely, Lloyd, Sherwood of Talbot, Colston,
John Dennis, Williams, Hicks, Goldsborough,
Eccleston, Phelps, Constable, Chambers of Cecil,
Miller, McLane, Bowie, McCubbin, Spencer,
Grason, George, Dirickson, McMaster, Hearn,
Jacobs, Thomas, Shriver, Sappington, Stephen-
son. Magraw. Nelson, Carter, Thawley, Stewart
of Caroline, Hardcastle, Gwinn, Stewart of Bal-
timore city, Brent of Baltimore city, Sherwood of
Baltimore city, Presstman, Ware, Harbine, Mi-
chael Newcomer, Davis, Kilgour, Waters, An-
derson, Hollyday, Fitzpatrick, Parke, Shower,
Cockey and Brown—63.
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent, then moved the following
as an independent proposition, upon which
he demanded the previous question :
"The Legislature shall at its first session pro-
ceed to divide the city of Baltimore into ten dis-
tricts, to be composed of two contiguous wards
each, and each of said districts shall elect one
delegate to the General Assembly."
The previous question was seconded, and the
main question ordered, viz. on the adoption of
the proposition.
Mr, THOMAS moved that the question be taken
by yeas and nays, which being ordered, appeared
as follows:
Affirmative— Messrs. Chapman, Pres't., Mor-
gan, Blakistone, Dent, Hopewell, Ricaud, Lee,
Chambers of Kent, Donaldson, Dorsey, Wells,
Randall, Kent, Weems, Dalrymple, Brent of
Charles, Merrick, John Dennis, Williams, Hicks,
Goldsborough, Eccleston, Phelps, Bowie, Sprigg,
McCubbin, Bowling, Dirickson, McMaster, Hearn,
Fooks, Jacobs, Schley, Fiery, Neill, John New-
comer, Davis, Kilgour, Waters and Smith—40.
Negative—Messrs. Sellman, Howard, Buchan-
an, Bell, Welch, Chandler, Ridgely, Lloyd, Sherwood
of Talbot, Colston, Constable, Chambers of
Cecil, Miller, McLane, Spencer, Grason, George,
Wright, Thomas, Shriver, Johnson, Gaither, An-
nan, Sappington, Stephenson, McHenry, Ma-
graw, Nelson, Carter, Thawley, Stewart of Caro-
line, Hardcastle, Gwinn, Stewart of Baltimore
city, Brent of Baltimore city, Sherwood of Balti-
more city, Presstman, Ware, Harbine, Michael
Newcomer, Brewer, Anderson, Weber, Holly-
day, Fitzpatrick, Parke, Shower, Cockey and
Brown—49.
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. JOHNSON then moved the following as an
independent proposition: |
