State's population was not distributed
grossly unevenly and there were no great
population concentrations in the cities.
By 1790 the most populous county,
Baltimore, had about five times the
population of the least populous county,
Allegany, but twelve of the nineteen
counties, and Baltimore City, still fell
into a rather restricted common popu-
lation range— 10,000 to 20,000 per-
sons.42 By 1812 the political effects of
different population growth rates in the
counties could be easily seen. In that
year the Democrats had a statewide
majority of over 2,000 votes, but the
Federalists, strong in the overrepresented
counties, had over a 2-1 majority in both
the House of Delegates and the
Senate.43
In succeeding years, as the situation
worsened, reapportionment measures
were defeated in the General Assembly.
These reapportionment measures would
primarily have benefited fast-growing
and greatly underrepresented Baltimore
City, which was distrusted because of its
urban nature, size, and immigrant back-
ground. By 1836 less than one-fourth
of the population of the State, located
in the smaller counties, was able to elect
a majority of the senatorial electors, and
thus all of the Senate, as well as a major-
ity of the House. The repeated demands
for reform culminated in this year in a
bipartisan reform convention which met
in Baltimore to seek election of legis-
lators pledged to reapportionment. The
attempt did not succeed, in part be-
cause the smaller counties were largely
42 Population figures throughout this article
are from the decennial censuses of the United
States. Other sources are specifically cited
when used.
43Niles, Weekly Register (Baltimore) 111
(Oct. 16, 1813), cited in Brief for Appellants
at 45, Md. Comm. v. Tawes, 377 U.S. 656
(1964).
138
|
controlled by the Whigs while the
Democrats were stronger in the more
populous counties. In the 1836 sena-
torial college election, held in Septem-
ber, the Whigs selected twenty-one elec-
tors and the Democrats nineteen. Since
it took twenty-four senatorial electors to
constitute a quorum in the electoral col-
lege, and since all reform efforts, cul-
minating in the reform convention, had
been rebuffed, the Democrats refused to
attend unless the Whigs conceded to
them eight Senate seats, a majority of
the fifteen senators. A letter from the
Democratic electors to the Whig electors
explained their position :
"Of the nineteen counties and two
cities, into which the State is divided,
we represent the two cities and eight
of the counties, having a white popu-
lation of 205,922 and federal num-
bers44 of 267,669. You represent ten
of the counties, having a white popu-
lation of 85,176 and federal numbers
of 138,002; and the vote of the re-
maining counties is divided. . . . we
represent nearly three-fourths of the
free white population, and two-thirds
of the Federal numbers of the State,
and very much the largest portion of
its territorial extent and wealth. . . .
The counties and cities we represent
ought to have, upon any political prin-
ciple which governs the appointment
of members of a Legislature, a major-
ity of the Senate to be formed."45
The letter went on to recall the fruitless
"Under Art. 1, Sec. 2, Clause 3, of the
U. S. Constitution, representatives in the
House of Representatives were to be appor-
tioned among the States "according to their
respective numbers, which shall be determined
by adding to the whole number of free persons,
including those bound to service for a term
of years, and excluding Indians not taxed,
three-fifths of all other persons."
48 riley, supra note 8, at 341.
|
