shall be built out of the bricks of the old; thirdly,
resolved, that the old jail shall stand till the new
jail is completed.
Mr. CHAMBERS said:
The first thing that struck upon his ear as he
entered the House a few minutes since, was a
tirade against certain members of the Eastern
Shore and the Southern counties of the Western
shore. As he understood the gentleman from
Baltimore, (Mr. GWINN,) the imputation was
that they were guilty of an act of great turpi-
tude.
If the gentleman's assertions were true, they
had met here to vote themselves mileage, and to
do every thing in their power to defeat the Con-
stitution, but now as the gentleman was pleased
to say that they had turned asomerset, and had
become the par excellence Democrats of the
House. He so understood the gentleman, but
not wishing to do him injustice, he would ask
him to state what were the particular matters of
complaint against those gentlemen of the Eastern
shore, of whom he was one.
Mr. GWINN said:
That it seemed to him the gentleman was go-
ing a good deal out of his way to misunderstand
what he had said, or he must have been singularly
inattentive, for surely it was difficult to
misunderstand the plain proposition which he
had stated.
If the gentleman from Kent would rely some-
what less, on his quickness of apprehension, give
as much attention to the whole argument of an
adversary as the Convention accorded to him, he
would not be under the necessity of receiving
explanations as often as he was. All that he
said was that inasmuch as gentlemen of this Con-
vention had recognised all the provisions which
the hill contained, as binding upon themselves,
bethought it extraordinary that they should wish
to depart from the conduct that the law had pre-
scribed in the single instance as to the manner
in which the Constitution should be adopted. He
made no application of turpitude of motive to any
one, and it struck him as somewhat extraordina-
ry that the gentleman from Kent alone, should
have thought that he designed a personal reflec-
tion.
Were there not others more interested from
their share in the previous debate, in such an im-
putation if it really existed? And did the gentle-
man suppose that he had so far forgotten his duty
to this Convention and the many friends he had
from the Eastern shore, as to design a reflection
upon any gentleman from that section? , This
manufacture of issues other than those which
arose in debate, had not now occurred for the
first time in this body.
He was always willing to accord to any gentle-
man an explanation of any word spoken, but he
thought that members should have at least some
kind of reason for applying an interpretation ne-
cessarily offensive to others than themselves.
Mr. CHAMBERS said:
He bad asked the gentleman to state what he
had said, and he had undertaken to do so.
The House had heard the original remarks of |
the gentleman and his supplemental statement.
It was for them decide upon the accuracy of the
gentleman's recollection and the consistency of
his statements. The gentleman had thought pro-
per to superadd along lecture to him personally
(as was quite usual with him,) and he had as-
sumed certain facts as to his, (Mr. C's,) course
in debate. To this part of the gentleman's statement
he gave a flat contradiction.
He, [Mr. C.,] had planned no quarrel nor
sought altercation with any one. He had on no
occasion been the aggressor as he was not now.
Another assumption of the gentleman is equally
unfounded. He assumes that his remarks were
offensive to no other member from the Eastern
Shore.
Mr. C. said his friends around him felt them
to be as much out of place as they were unjust
and unmerited. But the logic of the gentleman
is as remarkable as his assumptions are unwar-
ranted He makes a fling at a class—a whole
class of persons, imputing most unbecoming con-
duct, and when one of the class rises to denounce
in his own name and in the name of the whole
class the injustice of the slander, he is told for-
sooth, you are always ready for a quarrel.—
Why did not you ait still and submit as the rest
do? Would the gentlemen have alt rise in mass
to repel his insinuations as the only condition on
which any one may venture to do so?
He differed from the gentleman's ethics as
much as he did from his facts and his logic. And
what pray is the inconsistency to which the
charge is now reduced? It was said they were
denying the validity of the law, or rather the act
of the last Legislature, while they were acting
under it. Had they not denied its constitutional
force and obligation from the first and through-
out? Sir, [said Mr. C.,] the first speech I made in
this body in the shape of a deliberate argument,
was in support of the broad proposition that this
act of the Legislature was utterly and entirely
without authority from the Constitution, and I
know of many highly intelligent members with
whom I personally associate, that they concur
in that opinion. That argument was made in
consequence of my being taunted with the diffi-
culties of my position on this floor; it was pub-
lished in the newspapers. Feeble as that argu-
ment may be, neither the gentleman nor any one
else had assailed it on this floor; nor had he
heard a voice raised here to vindicate the consti-
tutionality of that act, except from the gentleman's
colleague, (Mr. Brent.) I do not know now, sir,
where else to find the member who believes the
Legislature had any constitutional authority to pass
that act. There maybe such persons, but I do
not know who they are.
It might be quite amusing to the readers of our
debates, to find flippant charges of inconsistency
as the basis for wit and sarcasm, but no gentle-
man has a right gratuitously to make options
for me; no gentleman has a right to make a
class of inconsistent persona and put me into it;
no gentleman shall do so without hearing one
at least, who objects to the proceeding. I repeat,
Mr. President, the charge of inconsistency has |
