patriotism of the separate districts, and as a con-
sequence, a majority was found to pass the com-
promise measures. Already the large, and more
populous counties of the State, were looking to
representation on this floor in a mass, the whole
delegation in these quarters making a majority,
and they would come imbued with whatever in-
fatuation might pervade the great mass. If they
should elect them by districts, the delegations
would be composed of men of intelligence, and
alive to the interests of the State, and the minority
would be safe. Thus the Legislature of the State,
would be wisely conducted. He now appealed,
upon that view of the subject, to the friends of
the small counties, to rally to this measure, for
the salvation of the great interests of the small
counties.
Mr. McHenry oserved:
That he represented, in part, one of the
counties entitled, under the new appointment, to
three members of the Legislature, and if any
species of districting could be felt obnoxious by
his county, it would be the one proposed by the
gentleman from Frederick, (Mr. Johnson.) He
had voted to every bona fide proposition to di-
vide the whole State into single districts, which
had been offered, and for several which he did
not believe to be bona fide, and he would again
vote for any such proposition offered in good
faith. But for a proposition of this kind, divid-
ing the counties so unequally, (which he was
bound to believe, as the gentleman had so testi-
ed, was not intended to promote party interests,)
he could not vote at all. There was no
kind of equity in proposition which provid-
ed that a certain portion of a county should be
represented by two members, and another por-
tion by one member. It would be violating every
principle, upon which the district system is bas-
ed, and adopting an entirely arbitrary rule upon
this subject, which would be received with uni-
versal disapprobation throughout the State, and
particularly by those counties which would have
two representatives on one side and one on the
other; thus being liable to a species of gerryman-
dering surpassing in unfairness, any heretofore
known. He preferred this single district system
to the general ticket system, but would consent
to no partial, half-way measure, sure to cause
great dissatisfaction and to be unequal and op-
pressive in its application.
Mr. JOHNSON thought it was very easy for any
man who did not wish to vote for his proposition
to vote against it. He had been too much in
parliamentary bodies not to know that. He had
come here as a reformer, and did not wish to
benefit one party or the other. He desired to say
to gentlemen here that if they supposed they had
the whole thing into their own hands by his vote,
he would bring the question directly to them, and
he took it for granted there was a great moral
sentiment here, and a great many Democrats
voted for it upon principle, high, elevated, im-
maculate principle. By this proposition, he in-
tended to bring the question to a test.
Mr. CHANDLER moved that the Convention do
now adjourn, which motion was not agreed to. |
The question being on the amendment of Mr.
JOHNSON.
Mr. DENT moved the previous question, which
was seconded.
Mr. BOWIE moved for a division of the question
upon the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. Ricaud,) decided
the amendment was not divisible.
Mr. JOHNSON demanded the yeas and nays
on the apoption of his amendment,
Which were ordered,
And being taken, resulted as follows:
Affirmative-Messrs. Champman, Pres't, Morgan,
Blakistone, Dent, Hopewell, Lee, Donaldson,
Dorsey, Wells, Randall, Weems, Dalrymple,
Brent, of Charles, Merrick, Jenifer, Bowling,
Fooks, Johnson, Gaither, Annan, Fiery, Neill,
John Newcomer, Davis, Kilgour, Waters and
Smith-27.
Negative-Messrs. Ricaud, Chambers, or Kent,
Kent, Sellman, Howard, Buchanan, Bell, Welch,
Chandler, Ridgely, Lloyd, Sherwood, of Talbot,
Colston, John Dennis, Williams, Hicks, Golds-
borough, Eccleston, Phelps, Constable, Chambers,
of Cecil, Miller, McLane, Bowie, Tuck, Sprigg,
McCubbin, Spencer, Grason, George, Wright,
Dirickson, McMaster, Hearn, Jacobs, Thomas,
Shriver, Biser, Sappington, Stephenson, McHenry,
Magraw, Nelson, Carter, Thawley, Stewart, of
Caroline, Hardcastle, Gwinn, Stewart, of Balti-
more city, Brent, of Baltimore city, Sherwood,
of Baltimore city, Presstman, Ware, Schley,
Harbine, Michael Newcomer, Brewer, Anderson,
Weber, Hollyday, Fitzpatrick, Parke, Shower,
Cockey and Brown-65.
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. BOWIE then offered the following as as
independent proposition.
"The Legislature shall divide the city of Balti-
more into ten districts of contiguous wards, and
as nearly as may be of equal population, and each
of said districts shall he entitled to elect one del-
egate to the General Assembly."
Mr. JOHNSON. That proposition has been
voted down four times already.
Mr. BOWIE. Not in that form. Entirely-dif-
ferent, I assure you,
Mr. JOHNSON. I move this as a substitue, and
make a pledge that it is the very best one I shall
offer.
Mr. BOWIE, You said that before,
Mr. JOHNSON. So I did, but I repeat it now.
I shall not offer another, nor open my lips upon the
subject again. If my friend from Prince George's
lingers upon the fallacious hope that Baltimore
city is to be divided, that hope should have been
banished a week ago, because I told him it could
not be done.
The substitute of Mr. JOHNSON was then read
as follows:
"The Legislature at its first session after the
adoption of this Constitution, shall provide by
law for laying off and dividing the city of Balti-
more into five represenative districts of contiguous
wards, and of as nearly equal population as con-
venient, each of which districts shall elect two
members to the House of Delegates, The Legis- |
