Mr. DANIEL. There is no rule without its
exceptions. It is said that the exceptions are
necessary to constitute the rule. Now I think
this is such a slight exception to the rule,
and I think the equity of the case and the
circumstances appeal to us so strongly to de-
viate from the strict rule we have made in
this matter, that I shall vote very cheerfully
for opening the report to allow this addi-
tional representative to be given to Kent
county. As it has already been said,
not only in point of population, they are so
near, but they are ahead of a good many
other counties that have additional repre-
sentation, in point of wealth and other cir-
cumstances.
Mr. NEGLEY. Wealth is not the basis of
representation.
Mr. DANIEL continued: As to the objec-
tion raised by the gentleman from Washing-
ton, that if we open this, the whole structure
topples, and we must necessarily open it, and
necessarily amend it for everybody who asks
it, I cannot see the force of the reasoning.
But I say to him that we will judge of every
case upon its own merits. When the appeal
comes from St. Mary's or Baltimore county,
if they apply, we will judge of each case
upon its own merits, taking up one at a
time, and judge of it upon its own merits.
I am for opening the report and granting
an additional member; and when the other
cases come up, if other applications shall
be made, I will judge of those. I am free
to say that the application of St. Mary's I
shall not vole for, and I shall vote against
every other that has not stronger claims
than St. Mary's; but this having a great
deal stronger claim, I shall vote for it.
Mr. HOFFMAN. The gentleman from Wash-
ington (Mr. Negley) has referred to the claims
of Baltimore county. Our people are com-
plaining very bitterly that, with a population
twice that of Carroll county, we have only
one additional representative. I hope this
will be opened, and that the gentleman from
Kent will be allowed one more, and that Bal-
timore county will get one or two more.
Mr. PUGH. I have only to say that the
reason why I shall vote for giving to Kent an
additional representative is that I do not
think that, in point of fact, the principle is
violated by our doing so. I think, in point
of fact, that the language used in this section
would be applicable to the county of Kent.
Although we confined the number to one,
upon the census of 1860, yet I think that, in
point of fact, Kent is to-day entitled to two
representatives, because I think that there
are to-day far more than this small fraction
of white people that are required in order to
entitle the county to two.
Bat with regard to Baltimore county, I do
not believe that, according to the principle
adopted, Baltimore county is eptitled to ad-
ditional representatives; nor do I believe any
58 |
other county is entitled to more than we have
allowed it. I certainly intend to support the
amendment proposed by the gentleman from
Kent, for the reason that I now state, that I
believe that that particular county is to-day,
on account of the white people that are in
the county, entitled to two representatives.
It is a peculiar case, unlike the case of any
other county. She only lacks a very few by
the census, and, as I have said before, I be-
lieve the principle applied to the number as
it exists there to-day, would give to Kent
county an additional representative.
Mr. CLARKE. I merely rise to say that upon
the pending proposition I shall vote with
pleasure to increase the representation of Kent
county to two members. And I will say that
if a similar proposition is offered to increase
the representation of the other counties cat
down to one member, I shall vote for such an
amendment to the present report; and, to a
great extent, upon this ground, that by
cutting down any of the counties to one
member, having only one senator, in the
event of the sickness or necessary absence of
the member during that session of the legis-
lature, you must necessarily have, even upon
the floor of this house, a county without any
representation whatever.
I think it further necessary to make one
allusion to the question of principle being
involved in the adoption of the amendment.
Gentlemen forget that there is no principle
involved in it at all. We see to-day that we
hear complaints from Washington county
we hear complaints from Baltimore county
we hear complaints from Kent; we hear them
from all parts of the State. And why? Because
in the adoption of this representative
system you have not gone upon principle -
but have merely adopted the arbitrary rule
that for every 5,000, to a certain extent, you
will give one member; and then you go on
according to a certain other rule, changing
the rule with the increase of population. If
it was principle involved in this case, the
principle would work right and justice every-
where, and give satisfaction to every portion
of the State. You have just as much right
to gay you will give one member for every
3,000 us for every 5,000 or 10,000. It is a
mere arbitrary standard; a rule which yon
choose to adopt; and no principle is in-
volved; and hence the result is complaint
from every side.
Now I say that there being no principle
involved in the case, but only an arbitrary
rule, I go for extending this arbitrary rule
further, and giving to every county of the
State at least two members upon this floor;
so that the small counties shall not be left
during a great portion of the time without
representation.
One other remark I wish to make upon this
question. I was not here when the vote was
taken upon this question upon the second |
