MR. DAVIS. From McSherry's History of Ma-
ryland. Isn't it good authority?
MR. BUCHANAN. Yes.
MR. D. proceeded to read:
"The re-apportionment of the House of Dele-
gates so as to do justice to the populous districts,
and at the same time to give to the small
counties, and the city of Annapolis, ample power
to protect their interests."
This is the language and the ground taken by
the Reform Convention of 1836. Ample power
to the city of Annapolis and the small counties,
to protect their interests. This is all we want.
Practically carry out this pledge in practice, he
would be satisfied. If the smaller counties could
be enabled to protect their own interests, it was
all they demanded. The delegates were not to
represent the corporeal bodies of men, but the
interests of men, and should be so apportioned
that the interests of all sections should be fully
protected.
The gentleman from Baltimore city [Mr.
Gwinn,] in his speech on Monday, had intro-
duced a new element as the basis of representa-
tion—he had thought proper to draw a contrast
between the wealth of Baltimore, and the wealth
of the county of Kent. He, [Mr. G.,] represen-
ted in part an interest of seventy millions, and
the gentleman from Kent, near me, of about four
millions of dollars. He, [Mr. D.] must he per-
mitted to say that wealth as a basis of represen-
tation, was to his humble apprehension, a new
article in the democratic reform creed. He un-
derstood that to be the doctrine of the gentle-
man from Baltimore, and if he was wrong, he
hoped he would be corrected. If that was his
theory, let him carry it out; run it through, as
his colleague says, and say to the man with
$100,000, you are entitled to ninety-nine more
votes than ,he man who has but $1,000, and so
down to the man with $100, or less. That was
the principle, and he would hold the gentleman
to the doctrine, which he had now for the first
time heard avowed, that wealth should be the
basis of political power. He had been accus-
tomed, ever since he was a voter, to meet every
citizen upon the same platform, whether the
man who owned his thousands of acres, or the
roan who was only hired by him as a day labor-
er. They met at the polls upon an equality.—
But now was introduced, from Baltimore city,
a new element, which if adopted, would enable
that city to swallow up the rest of the State, as
well as a basis of population would; for it was
increasing in wealth too fast for the counties to
rise with it. Baltimore, under such a principle,
without even that of representation, would soon.
aggrandize to herself the whole political power
of the State.
The gentleman from Baltimore city, [Mr.
Gwinn,] had also undertaken to give the history
of the connection of Maryland with works of in-
ternal improvement. With all the intelligence
and research of that gentleman he must take is-
sue with him upon matters of fact. The history
presented by that gentleman had neither been |
correct with respect to the city of Baltimore or
the State of Maryland. He understood him to
date back the commencement of internal im-
provements to 1820, or about that time, to a Con-
vention in Baltimore, at which Charles Carroll,
of Carrollton, presided. He had also understood
him to say, that Maryland had lost nothing upon
any works of internal improvement which con-
nected the country with the city of Baltimore.
In the first place, the gentleman had not, by any
means, gone far enough back in his researches.
The first internal improvement Convention was
held in the city of Annapolis, 22nd December,
1784; and who, think you, presided? Not Car-
roll, of Carrollton, although he was present and
participated in the meeting, but the illustrious
father of his country, who had lent his aid and
his information to mark out what he conceived
to be for the future interests of Maryland and
Virginia. If it would not tkae up too much time,
he should be glad to read the account of that
meeting-he would only give an extract: "That
it is the opinion of the conference, that the pro-
posal to establish a company for opening the ri-
ver Potomac, merits the approbation of, and de-
serves to be patronized by Virginia and Maryland,
and that a similar law ought to be passed by the
Legislature of the two governments, to promote
and encourage so laudable an undertaking."
Thus, sir, in 1784, originated from the patriot
minds, and far-reaching wisdom of Washington
and Carroll, of Carrollton, that stupendous work,
the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, which was only
completed in October last.
The next Convention in which the people of
Maryland had participated, was held in the city
of Washington in 1823, containing members from
Maryland, Virginia, and perhaps Ohio and Penn-
sylvania. The Convention adjourned, and again
convened in the same city in 1826. In that Con-
vention the city of Baltimore was represented,
and when I read you the names, I think you, sir,
will agree with me that Baltimore never was
more ably represented in any body. The dele-
gates were Solomon Etting, Benjamin C. How-
ard, William Lorman, Isaac McKim, Joseph W.
Patterson, Philip E. Thomas, Thoams Ellicott,
Roger B. Taney and Luke Tiernan.
MR. HOWARD, [in his seat.] We went there to
secure the cross-cut canal.
MR. DAVIS. I know you did, in part, but that
was not an original idea. The right to take the
Chesapeake and Ohio Canal for a cross-cut, had
been provided for by the Virginia charter granted
in 1824-two years before.
The gentlemen present, as well as others of
the delegation, had participated in the proceed-
ings of the meeting. At this Convention, thus
so ably represented by Baltimore, the follow re-
solution was unanimously passed:
"That it is expedient to substitute for the pre-
sent navigation of the Potomac river above Tide
Water, a navigable canal by Cumberland, to the
mouth of Savage creek, at the Eastern bar of
the Allegany, and to extend such canal as soon
thereafter as practicable, to the highest constant
steam boat navigation of the Monongahela or
Ohio river." |
