weighted population basis for appor-
tionment of the House. The full impact
of the weighting formula could not be
foreseen however. In 1840, when the
weighted basis of representation was
first implemented, a delegate from Bal-
timore City represented more than 7.9
times as many persons as a representa-
tive from Caroline County. Within one
decade the situation changed materially.
By 1850 Caroline County's population
had grown by slightly less than 2,000 to
a total of 9,692 persons. By contrast,
Baltimore County had grown by over
9,000 to 41,592; Frederick County by
over 4,000 to 40,987; and Baltimore
City by over 66,000 to 169,054. Under
the 1837 apportionment formula, how-
ever, Caroline County continued with
three delegates while Baltimore City was
given six delegates, so that a representa-
tive from Baltimore City represented 8.7
times as many persons as a delegate from
Caroline County. Moreover, the differ-
ential growth rates of the counties and
of Baltimore City was continuing so that
the situation could only be expected to
worsen rapidly. In this setting the ques-
tion of framing a new constitution was
put to a popular vote, and approved,
in 1850.
THE 1851 CONSTITUTION
With the calling of a constitutional
convention in 1850 it was inescapable
that it would have to devote serious
attention to the apportionment problem.
The delegates to the convention from
Baltimore City and from the larger
counties attempted to have the House
of Delegates based on population. Thus
Mr. Presstman, from Baltimore City,
who favored a strict population basis
for both the House of Delegates and the
Senate but realized that this was polit-
ically impossible at the time, proposed
that the House be strictly based on
140
|
population with a mixed basis for the
Senate.50 The debates revealed a strong
distrust of Baltimore City and an even
stronger disinclination to accord it rep-
resentation proportional to its popula-
tion.51 After all, it was argued, the
State had prospered ever since early
colonial days even though the counties
had had equal representation in the
House, and this was visible proof that
representation did not need to be based
on population at all. Furthermore,
Baltimore City was the heart of Mary-
land so that the continued prosperity of
Maryland required the continued pros-
perity of Baltimore, giving the counties
a direct incentive to protect the city's
welfare so that the city had no need to
look after its own interests. It was also
claimed that since Baltimore had eco-
nomic dominance in the State, the coun-
ties should have political dominance as
a counterforce. Aside from these prac-
tical arguments, the basic idea of repre-
sentation according to population was
attacked for giving insufficient protec-
tion to the minority and opening the
gates to the tyranny of the majority.
Other contentions were not placed on so
lofty grounds. Thus the less populous
slaveholding counties fought increased
representation for Baltimore City for
their own self-protection, while the
right of Baltimore City to representa-
tion was attacked on the grounds that
the city was full of immigrants ignorant
of democratic practices and inclined
toward mob violence. In the end, the
proposal to base the House of Delegates
strictly on population was defeated.52
The campaign to put representation
on the basis of population was not with-
50 1 debates and proceedings of the
maryland reform convention, 1851, p.
122 (M'Neir's ed. 1851).
51 Id. at 133ff.
52 Id. at 118.
|
