Mr. BRISCOE. It is very likely that the
matter may have to be changed again. I
have a motion to make.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. I will give way for the
present.
Mr. BRISCOE, I move to suspend the 53d
rule to enable me to move to strike out
" one" after Calvert, Charles and St, Mary's,
and to insert the word " two " in each place,
so as to give each county of the State two
delegates at least. I was somewhat surprised a
few moments ago to hear the gentleman from
Baltimore city (Mr. Thomas) say that there
had been an outside understanding that this
thing, so far as the increase for the county
of Baltimore was concerned, was to be con-
sidered —
The PRESIDENT. The motion to suspend is
not debatable.
Mr. BRISCOE. I will move to add one to
Baltimore county at the same time.
The motion to suspend the 53d rule was
rejected.
KENT COUNTY.
Mr. THOMAS moved to reconsider the vote
by which the amendment submitted by Mr.
HOLLYDAY to increase the representation of
Kent county was adopted.
Mr. HOLLYDAY. I hope that motion will
not prevail. The gentleman from Baltimore
city (Mr. Thomas) stated that there had been
a promise made if another representative was
given to Kent, to give another one to Balti-
more county. I should like to know from
whom that promise came; for I have not
understood that there was such a promise.
Mr. THOMAS. I will say to the gentleman
that I thought it was generally understood
I would not have come up to the house this
afternoon, sick as I am, if I did not think
from what I heard outside of this house that
Baltimore county was to have one more dele-
gate. I told the gentleman at dinner I would
be here.
Mr. HOLLYDAY. I can only say with regard
to that matter that I never promised any
body. I told them I bad no objection at all
to giving one to Baltimore county; but
never said that I would vote for. it. I am
one of those who never make an arrangement
of that kind. I told them that I would no
bind myself to vote for Baltimore county or
any other county.
Mr. CHAMBERS. In explanation of my po-
sition I solemnly protest that I not only never
heard of the compromises, but never hear
that it was designed to move, if Kent ob-
tained a member, that Baltimore county
should have another, until I heard it from
gentlemen upon this floor since the vote was
taken,
Mr. BARRON. I will state that this morn-
ing it was mentioned that Kent wanted
member, and Baltimore county a member, and
I said: pot them both together and I will vote |
for them. I was willing to vote for Balti-
more county every day in the week; but I
saw that as soon as they got the member for
Kent, they were satisfied lo go back.
Mr. CLARKE, This is a motion to reconsider,
and I regard it now in order in debating the
matter whether or not we should reconsider
the vote, to call the attention of the conven-
tion to the difference of the ground upon
which Kent county appealed to the con-
vention, and that upon which Baltimore
county has appealed to the convention,
I will state, as I stated before, that I
voted this morning at first against the in-
crease to Kent county upon the ground that
the convention having determined upon an
arbitrary rule by which representation should
be apportioned in the State, the basis of that
rule should be applied and carried out to its
consequences, and that there should be no
departure from it for the purpose of concilia-
ting anywhere any local feeling, or any local
dissatisfaction; because alter the principle
was adopted it must work equally every where
if that was to be the rule of representation.
I stated further, as a reason for my subse-
quent vote upon the proposition to increase
the delegation from Kent county, and as a
reason for my vote in opposition to the in-
crease of the delegation from Baltimore county
in order to reconcile the two votes, that I
did it simply upon this ground; that I had
heard it slated by gentlemen in whose word
I placed implicit confidence, upon this floor,
that Kent county possessed a white population
which entitled her to two members. The
gentleman from Cecil said he knew that
the population of Kent since 1860 had largely
increased, and by the census of 1860 Kent
county only wanted about one hundred and
fifty additional white population to entitle
her to another member. And other gentle-
men stated positively that they were sure
that if the population of Kent county were
now to be taken, she would have a popula-
tion which would entitle her to two repre-
sentatives.
Now the gentleman from Baltimore county
(Mr. Ridgely) inquires whether I, as a lawyer,
would take hear-say evidence. I do not take
hear-say evidence at all. That was not a
hear-say state of evidence. It was the tes-
timony of honorable gentlemen upon this
floor, asserting from their knowledge of the
fact that she was entitled to this representa-
tion. And I would ask him, or any gentle
man upon this floor, if honorable members
here make an assertion, acting under their
oaths, and their duties to the State of Mary
land, other members have not a right to act
upon it. That fixes my vote for Kent county
Now I will come to Baltimore county.
Baltimore county bad under this appor-
tionment five members, one for each five thou
sand white inhabitants, up to twenty-five
thousand. Then the convention say that |
