mend the fable of the woodsman, who asked of
the trees of the forest, an axe handle; the request
being so modest, the principal trees, at once
agreed to it, and determined, that the plain
homely ash, should furnish the handle; but no
sooner had the woodsman fitted it to his purpose
than he began to hew down the trees in all directions.
The oak, seeing the havoc, whispered
to the cedar—"the first concession has lost us
all; if we had not sacrificed our humble neighbor
we might have yet stood for ages ourselves."
No, sir, if the principle is right, feasible and
safe, that masses, however fluctuating and hete-
rogeneous they may be, should be represented ac-
cording to numbers, without regard to minorities,
sectional interests, and circumstances surround-
ing the whole body politic—why then let there
be no compromise; let us have the naked princi-
ple itself affixed to the Constitution, and become
the sole element of power, in all time to come,
in these ancient Council Halls of our Fathers.
Let us not invalidate a principle by impairing
its efficiency under a compromise, which like all
other compromises, originate in notions of ex-
pediency, and generally end in disappointment.
There was a compromise in 1836, his it pro-
duced any good? What evidence have you? I
wish it were not on the other side.
It is not numbers of Legislators, and volumes
of acts of Assembly we want; that does not benefit
the people, however much it may politicians.
You increased the delegates then, and with that
came an increase of taxation. I wish to see a
quietus on this question of representation, so lit-
tle talked of belore the people, and so much declaimed
in this hall; let us acknowledge the prin-
ciple at once, or make no compromise at all.
I abhor this partial treatment of any important
question, and although I am, from every consid-
eration of sound policy, opposed to the doctrine
here set up, yet if my judgment was otherwise,
nothing short of a full recognition of the whole
principal in the Constitution would satisfy me.
No, sir, on this question, let us have no compromise
none whatever.
I have no faith in a contract, where one of the
parties is so trammelled and fettered as to be
compelled to make the best terms be can, though
the right should be on his side; such a contract
will not long be observed, and I for one say,
that if Baltimore city, armed with the doctrine
of representation of numbers, can so exort from
the counties a tacit acknowledgment of the
soundness of the principle, by any compromise
of concession whatever—then Baltimore ought
not, and certainly would not, regard the con.
tract as binding, but would throw it off at her
own convenience, call a new Convention, and
break down every barrier to a full recognition
of the principle in its broadest character.
Mr. President, gentlemen favoring this generous
compromise, tell us that they will preserve
territorial representation in the Senate, and that
is to be the grand conservative feature in the
system. Why, this appears to me, to be an in-
congruity of itself; acknowledge the principle in |
the popular branch of the government, and yet
fetter its action, by acknowledging an other
principle in the Senate! I do not understand that
system of ethics, which tenders a boon with one
hand and withholds it with the other. If the
principle is to be acknowledged at all, let it
have full and free scope to develop itself let
there be no restrictions.
But do not gentleman perceive the fallacy of
such a course? After you acknowledge the ma-
jesty of numbers in the House, suppose some
leading question, of great interests to Baltimore
city, should receive the sanction of a large ma-
jority in that body, and should be lost by one
vote in the Senate, and that vote should come
from Caroline or Calvert, county; what kind of
a spectacle would that present in legislation,
where 9,000 souls are permitted to thwart the
wishes of 571,000 ! Would such a thing he tol-
erated long? Would not the moral force of pub-
lic opinion obliterate from your organic law
such heterodoxy as that? Where would you find
one man, with moral courage enough, to op-
pose his judgment to such a host? We are not
to expect prodigies of men, like ourselves; the
thing would be unreasonable, and could not survive
the shock of public indignation. No, sir
if the Senate is to impose any restraints upon the
action of the House, that Senate must be backed
by moral sentiment, reflected in the House,
through the delegates of the people. There would
in my humble judgment, be no analogy in the
case like that supposed, and one of a similar
character in the Senate of the Federal Govern-
ment, where sovereign States are represented.
Mr. President, some time ago, the gentleman
from Baltimore city. [Mr. Presstman,] offered a
resolution on the relations existing between
master and slave, in this State, As near as I
can recollect, it was very similar to the provis-
ions in the present Constitution on that subject.
I was much gratified at his orthodoxy on that
point; not doubling, but the same is the case
with all other gentlemen of this body. That
gentleman guessed rightly, in supposing that our
opposition to representation of numbers, was
owing in part to our geographical position in the
State, and our intimate relation to that institu-
tion, which has but recently been, and still is
the subject of so much excitement throughout
this Union. And when his colleague, (Mr. Brent)
followed immediately after with the declaration
that he wanted the appropriating power of the
Legislature restricted—I confess I was at a loss
to account for our concurrence of opinion on two
subjects, of so much real interest to the State at
large and yet find ourselves differing so widely
on another question of mere theoretical princi-
ple. While ruminating on the subject, I thought
of Hamlet's ghost, and though the language may
not be apropos, yet the suspicions the gentle-
man from Somerset, at the time, [Mr. Dashiell,]
warrant the quotation:
"Be thy intents wicked, or charitable,
Thou com'st in such questionable shape,
That I will speak to thee." |
