take the black man because he is black; you
will take the white man because he is white.
There is to be no other criterion of the gov-
erning class but the color. Suppose there is
some sense in that. How does it happen to be
the case that the whites are the governing
class? We have bad, not only here and now,
but years past through every abolition ave-
nue, preached to us the natural equality of
the negro; that Almighty God made him
equal to the white. The gentleman from
Cecil (Mr. Pugh) is under great misapprehen-
sion when he says the negro is nowhere per-
mitted to vote and to participate in the gov-
ernment. The negro votes in the free States
just as well as he or I do here. I lake that
back; just as well as he does, for I cannot
vote sometimes when I go to the polls, with-
out meeting a great many difficulties that the
negro in New York and Massachusetts does
not encounter. They not only vote there,
but they hold office.
Why do not they do it here? You are
great friends to the negro up to a certain
point. As far as the master is concerned, the
negro is everything. As one of them, in
quite an eloquent speech in our town, said to
his comrade: "It is our day now; the white
man is nothing." That speech was made
there with more truth, I am sorry to say,
than I ever expected it would have. You
first disfranchise them; you first prohibit to
them any agency in the government, and
then say they shall not vote because they are
proscribed.
You say the whites shall be represented;
you put the word "white'' there; that pro-
scribes the negro, nothing else. Is that argu-
ment sound which first—not according to my
theory, but according to the theory of these
abolitionists—commits an offence, and then,
because that offence is committed, punishes
the offended? So much for that argument.
Now for the amendment. I Bay the propo-
sition of the gentleman from Prince George's
(Mr. Clarke) will meet my approbation. It
is the sound, true, and only correct demo-
cratic doctrine, if we are to go for democratic
administration. If gentlemen desire to carry
out what they profess, that is the only mode
in which to do it.
The plan I proposed in the last convention
was to district the city of Baltimore alone
upon a principle which has been stated, that
if a man in Baltimore can vote for twenty
representatives, while I can vote for but two,
he has ten times the privilege I have. That
is therefore inequality, and inequality is
injustice. My plan was to district the city
of Baltimore alone. Some of the ablest men
in the last convention advocated districting
the whole State. And a map was actually
made, as members will find by reference to
the proceedings, and exhibited in that con-
vention, and a very able discussion was had
upon that subject. However, I cannot refer |
to that matter very fully, for I am circum-
scribed in regard to debate to a very few
minutes.
While I say this, I say that exceptions
should be made. It is very just to say that
all general rules will produce hardships some-
where. But there is a misapplication of this
doctrine. When a law is passed in advance
and in general terms, it may well be expected
that cases will subsequently arise which, not
being exactly within the letter of the remedy,
or not being exactly within the language of
the prohibition, will either escape the remedy
or meet with unmerited punishment. But
that is not our case here. The case now ex-
ists; you have now the question before yon ;
all of you have it. Where a county ap-
proaches within so very small a number of
the required ratio, it ought not to be ex-
cluded.
Gentlemen tell us that in ten, or twelve, or
fourteen years, this will be remedied. Why
impose this hardship upon us in the mean-
time? You have the power; the remedy is
in your hands; why not apply it? if this
general law was passed at a time when you
did not know what proportion the different
counties would have to the standard, there
might be some reason why a county should
suffer. But you know beforehand; it is now
perfectly palpable; why therefore inflict the
hardship?
Believing that this position cannot possibly
be controverted, that the convention will
not intentionally inflict a hardship because
there may be a remedy ten years hence, I
shall at the proper time move to except the
the counties that come near the limit of the
ratio of representation; Kent county, par-
ticularly. In the case of a county like my
own, within one or two hundred of the neces-
sary amount of population, why should we
be so reduced?
. Gentlemen talk about a general rule. You
never have had, and never will have, a gen-
eral rule without exceptions. Docs this propo-
sition before you go upon the ground of rep-
resentation exactly according to population ?
No, sir. That never has been done, and I do
not think it ever will be done. I do not
think the counties of Allegany, Washington,
Frederick, and the larger counties—1 am
sure the smaller counties never will—will
ever agree that Baltimore shall have a represen-
tation exactly according to population; com-
posed, as that population is to a large extent,
of individuals having no earthly interest in
the government; men who are perfect stran-
gers to the government; who are incapable
of understanding its theory or operation;
they will never consent that those persons
shall be represented, every individual head
of them, while thousands of those in the
counties are unrepresented.
And another reason for that which has
always been operative, and the influence of |
