tion; and as an approach to what I regard as
right I vote for this proposition, "aye,"
Mr. HEBB said: The majority of this house
having solemnly decided heretofore that this
report should stand as it is, I feel bound to
vote against all changes; and vote "no."
Mr. MAYHUGH said; I have not heard a
single argument in favor of this amendment,
and no argument can be adduced in favor of
it; and I therefore must vote "no."
Mr. NEGELY said: As it would disturb the
foundation upon which this whole apportion-
ment is based, and violate it in one particu-
lar, and I do not see why you might not as
well violate it in a thousand, I vote " no."
Mr. SCHLEY said: I felt strongly tempted to
vote for the proposition of the gentleman
from Kent, but am restrained by two consid-
erations; first, an unwillingness to violate
the principle adopted here, and secondly, a
desire to stand by the action of the majority
as the report was agreed upon. I vote " no."
The amendment was accordingly adopted.
BALTIMORE COUNTY.
Mr. HOFFMAN, I move to suspend the fifty-third
rule for the purpose of making a motion
to open the report of the committee for the
purpose of amending it in reference to Balti-
more county by adding one to her delegation,
giving her " seven " delegates instead of
"six."
Mr. BRISCOE. I understand my proposition
that I offered this morning to be pending.
The PRESIDENT But one proposition can
be entertained at a time.
Mr. BRISCOE. I made the motion notwith-
standing.
The PRESIDENT. , The gentleman was not
in order if he did make the motion.
Mr. CLARKE. Before voting upon the mo-
tion of the gentleman from Baltimore county,
I should like to have some explanation upon
what ground the proposition is based. We
had from the gentleman from Kent (Mr. Hol-
lyday) some reason for his proposition.
Mr. RIDGELY. We have a population of
46,722, and under this apportionment we get
but six delegates; while Carroll county, with
a population of 22,525, gets five delegates
Our people are complaining very much about
this apportionment. We think the rule works
very unjustly to us; and that it has been
arbitrarily fixed in this respect. We hope
the convention will grant us this one; and
we shall not then be represented according
to population as fully as other counties.
hope the convention will grant us this one
member, for the sake of the constitution; for
the sake of satisfying our constituents. We
want them to vote for this constitution, and
to give a strong majority for it.
Mr. MILLER. I hope that motion will no
prevail. When the minority report of the
committee on the basis of representation was
before the body, Baltimore county was repre-. |
sented in that by eight delegates. She chose,
however, not to accept that apportionment
which would give her eight delegates, and
give to some other counties one more dele-
gate; but she chose to adopt this principle,
arbitrary rule—call it what you choose—
cutting down my county, Anne Arundel, one
representative, and cutting down other coun-
ties in the State, and giving her six dele-
gates. I say now let Baltimore county stand
or fall upon that. What claim has she, ac-
cording to the basis fixed in this report of her
own adoption, for other counties, to another
member? The basis of 5,000 for each dele-
gate up to a population of 25,000 will give
her five delegates. Then the principle or
arbitrary rule which they saw fit to adopt,
has cut them down, and has cut down Balti-
more city. In order to prevent the too large
delegation which would result in Baltimore
city, they have chosen to say that the next
20,000 shall give her one more delegate.
Then that will give her the sixth delegate,
and will leave only 1,722 for the fraction
over. For that fraction I do not think she
has the least claim upon the principle or the
rule to ask for another delegate.
Mr, SANDS. Mr, President—
The PRESIDENT. The question of suspend-
ing the 53d rule is not debatable,
Mr. RIDGELY demanded the yeas and nays,
and they were ordered.
The question being taken, the result was—
yeas 35, nays 29—as follows :
Yeas—Messrs, Goldsborough, President;
Barron, Briscoe, Carter, Chambers, Cunning-
ham, Daniel, Earle, Ecker, Galloway, Greene,
Hoffman, Hollyday, Hopkins, Hopper, Ken-
nard, King, Larsh, McComas, Mullikin,
Parker, Pugh, Purnell, Ridgely, Sands, Scott,
Smith, of Carroll, Smith, of Worcester, Stir-
ling, Stockbridge, Swope, Sykes, Thomas,
Wickard, Wooden—35.
Nays—Messrs. Abbott, Annan, Baker, Belt,
Billingsley, Blackiston, Bond, Clarke, Cush-
ing, Davis, of Washington, Dellinger, Dent,
Duvall, Farrow Hebb, Horsey, Keefer, Lee,
Markey, Mayhugh, Miller, Murray, Negley,
Nyman, Parran, Russell, Schley, Todd, Tur-
ner—29.
When their names were called,
Mr. CLARKE said: I have one word to say
with reference to the vote I shall give upon
this proposition. I voted in favor of the pro-
position to amend 80 as to give Kent county
two delegates instead of one. It was with
great hesitation that I was brought to vote
for that amendment; and it was simply upon
this ground: I was opposed, when the con-
vention had adopted a basis of representation.
here, to departing One iota from the actual
operation of the rule—for I will not call it a
principle. I yielded only upon the assertion
of the gentlemen that Kent county really had
population enough to be entitled to two
p. members. |
