napolis? Do they not go away on the boat
and cars? On every Sunday this city will
be as empty of members as it can be. And
will not the Sergeant-at-Arms have the addi-
tional trouble of going on the boat to Balti-
more to hunt up members, and of going to
Baltimore by railroad to bunt them up? If
we were in the city of Baltimore, he might
have to run over the city, but that would be
about all If we stay here he will have to
traverse both lines, by railway and steam-
boat, to hunt up the scattered members. I
positively and honestly believe that the la-
bors of the Convention will be completed at
a much earlier day if we go to the city of
Baltimore than if we remain here. The
members will have time enough for recreation
and for meeting in committee. They will go
to Baltimore in spite of your determination
to stay here. There is no power that will
keep them here. I have beard many say they
will go there and board, coming here in the
morning and going back in the evening; and
where will their labors on the committees be?
If we go to Baltimore they will have abun-
dance of time both for recreation and for
attending to their duties on committees; and
the labors of the Convention will be much
earlier completed.
Looking at the question, then, in all points
of view, the constitutional objection being
abandoned, and the convenience being greater
there, I do not see why we should not go to
Baltimore, unless upon the idea that we shall
not be allowed freedom of debate there. That
is an imputation as much upon the spirit of
fair dealing on the part of members of this
Convention as it is upon the city of Balti-
more. I would do just as much against the
city of Baltimore in that city as in any other
spot in Maryland. Being there would not
influence my vote one particle; nor would it
influence the vote of any other member of
this Convention. They will act on their
solid convictions, free and independent of
any outside pressure. I shall be the last to
believe that any outside pressure or outside
interference would be at all attempted. I
have a better opinion of Baltimore city.
I, too, with the gentleman from Howard,
(Mr. Sands) am entirely opposed to the spirit
of antagonism, of regarding the interests of
Baltimore city as antagonistic to the interests
of the State, and arraying the counties against
the city of Baltimore. As well might the
arm or the bead mutiny against the stomach,
and declare that they would have no com-
munity of interest. The life of Baltimore
city is a life that ramifies through every
county in the State. The prosperity of Bal-
timore is pro tanto the prosperity of the entire
State. If you affect deleteriously the inte-
rests of any portion of Maryland the entire
State suffers to some extent the consequences.
it is irrational, it is unfair, it is unfraternal;
to be eternally attempting to array a spirit |
of sectionalism in this State. It is that ter-
rible spirit that now involves this country in
the bloodiest civil war that in the annals of
time was ever witnessed. It has arisen solely
from that sectional spirit that will not ac-
knowledge that the individual good is neces-
sarily involved in the general welfare.
Mr. BELT. The grounds upon which I shall
vote against the proposition to remove the
Convention have been, as a general thing, so
fully stated by my friend from Anne Arundel
(Mr. Miller) that I shall detain the Conven-
tion but a few moments to advert to one or
two considerations upon which he has not
touched.
First, in reference to the remarks that have
fallen from the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Negley) and the gentleman from How-
ard, (Mr. Sands) in deprecation of any hostile
feeling between the different sections of the
State, and more particularly between the rural
districts and Baltimore city. For one, I am a
stranger to any such sentiment; nor can I ap-
preciate the earnestness with which both of
those gentlemen have joined in such depreca-
tion of that spirit. I have beard no member on
this side of the House or the other say one word
in derogation of Baltimore city. I know the
prosperity of Baltimore is the prosperity of
my county and of every other county in the
State. I know that she is the centre of exchange
and trade. I know that like all great
cities she draws to her a large proportion of
the moral and intellectual worth of the State,
and an equally large proportion relatively of
the capital and industry. I am proud of the
city. I am proud of her achievements, of her
standing, of her prospects; and I yield to no
other Marylander in my admiration of her as
a commercial emporium, within the proper
sphere of her activity. I have the happiness
to agree in sentiment, particularly on subjects
of a political character, with the large major-
ity, as I believe, of the people with whom we
should come in contact if we were to remove
to Baltimore. We should have then the ad-
ditional advantage, which would be a matter
in which I should greatly delight personally,
of mingling with and daily conversing with a
great many gentlemen of talent, professional
men of experience and ability on the very sub-
jects to which our attention will be here called.
So I dismiss any consideration of antagonism
to Baltimore city in the vote which I shall
give on this question. So far from entertain-
ing such a feeling, I should personally prefer
the city of Baltimore for our sessions, for the
reasons to which I have referred.
To avoid any misapprehension, and at the
risk of separating myself from perhaps a ma-
jority of gentlemen on both sides of the Con-
vention, I will state that I base my opposi-
tion to this removal, first, upon the ground
that we have no legal right, in my humble
judgment to make this change. I am perfectly
familiar with the doctrine which has been |
