were no rules without exceptions; that the ex-
ceptions proved the value of the rule. But
they are now agreed to act in this matter as
if there was but one single exception, and that
was on their side, and that there was no other
to counterbalance it. I say it is but just to
Baltimore county that she should have this
additional member.
Gentlemen talk about the increase of popu-
lation in Kent county since 1860. Do not
they suppose that the larger, populous and
rapidly growing county of Baltimore has in-
creased its thousands also since then? To be
sure it has, and gentlemen must know it as well
as I do. They can in their calculations and ar-
guments make allowance for the growth of
the little county of Kent, and can assert that
they have no doubt in the world that she has
a number of people that did not appear upon
the face of the census table of 1860, and then
they shut their eyes most persistently to the
fact that Baltimore county, from her position,
size, population, and everything that goes to
favor an increase, must have increased at least
ten to one to what Kent has.
Now let gentleman act consistently in this
matter. Let them either bind themselves down
to a rule and adhere to it, and say—"I take
what is nominated in the bond; I ask no
more;" or if they vary from the rule let
them be as consistent about it as they can,—
Do not come to the conclusion that Kent has
more inhabitants than appear upon the census,
and then when you come to the case of Balti-
more county, utterly ignore the fact that her
increase must have been at least ten for every
one that Kent has increased.
There have always been a class of politicians
in the country who have been ready to raise
some cry whenever there is a popular election.
There is always some catchword invented to
be thrown out among the people to confuse
tad mislead them. The gentleman could not
serve our people that way. He might come
among them and raise theory of "representa-
tion according to population," and then if be
asked them for their voles, they would tell
him they bad not yet advanced quite that far in
their political education. I am sure the cry
raised in Baltimore county would not benefit
him or his party, when it was known that they
had here to-day refused Baltimore county her
moral and political right.
We have, as far as we can, to adopt some
rule, as we have alarge city, with more than
one-third of the population of the State in it,
we have to adopt some rule which is progress-
ive in regard to this matter of representation.
But when yon come to a county situated as
Baltimore county is, with 40,000 and more in-
habitants to-day, you cannot tie her down ar-
bitrarily to an iron rule, in the face of all her
strength, wealth, population and intelligence.
That would work her great harm. Still gen-
tleman cry—" It is so nominated in the bond "
But when it comes to Kent county, or some |
other little place whose political sympathies
are different from those of Baltimore county,
then the rule is a withe of straw, and will
go by the board.
Now I hope the Union men of this house
will not do Baltimore county the injustice, af-
ter first saying that Kent county shall be ben-
efited outside the rule, then tying Baltimore
county down to the rule, I trust they will
not so far forget their duty to themselves, to
Baltimore county, and to the majority of the
people of the State who sent them here, as to
give up their rule when it works against them,
and refuse to relax it when it will works in
their favor.
Mr. STIRLING moved the previous question,
which was seconded.
The question was then taken upon ordering
the main question, and upon adivision—ayes
37, noes not counted—the main question
was ordered.
Mr. BRISCOE moved a call of the house,
which was ordered.
Pending the call of the roll,
On motion of Mr. CUSHING,
Further proceedings under the call were
dispensed with.
The question recurred upon the motion of
Mr. THOMAS, to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment of Mr. HOLLYDAY was adopted,
giving Kent county two delegates instead of
one.
Upon this question Mr. ABBOTT called for
the yeas and nays, and they were ordered,
The question was then taken, by yeas and
nays, and resulted—yeas 30, nays 35—as fol-
lows :
Yeas—Messrs. Goldsborough, President;
Abbott, Annan, Audoun, Baker, Barron,
Cunningham, Cushing, Davis, of Washing-
ton, Dellinger, Ecker, Farrow, Galloway,
Hebb, Hoffman, Keefer, King, Larsh, May-
hugh, McComas, Murray, Negley, Parker,
Ridgely, Russell, Sands, Schley, Thomas,
Wickard, Wooden—30.
Nays—Messrs. Belt, Billingsley, Blackiston
Bond, Briscoe, Brown, Carter, Chambers
Clarke, Daniel, Dent, Duvall, Earle, Greene
Hollyday, Hopkins, Hopper, Horsey, Kennard
Lee, Markey, Miller, Mullikin, Nyman, Parran
Pugh, Purnell, Scott, Smith, of Carroll
Smith, of Worcester, Stirling, Stockbridge
Swope, Sykes, Todd— 3&.
The motion to reconsider was accordingly
not agreed to.
Pending the call of the roll, the following
explanations were made by members, as their
names were called.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Gentlemen assert here that
a compromise was proposed by which Kent
county was to obtain an additional member.
The import of the statement would naturally
be that Kent county had compromised herself
on that subject to some extent. There does
not seem to be a shadow of foundation for
1 such a thing. I demand of gentlemen to say |
