while recalcitrant legislators were im-
prisoned. The effect of these and other
measures was to weaken the political
power of the smaller and southern
oriented counties.
The changed political orientation of
the State, the problems resulting from
the war, and a desire to perpetual? the
dominant forces in power, led to "he
calling of a new constitutional conven-
tion in 1864. The convention conducted
an extensive debate on the proper basis
of representation in the legislature.
There was vigorous controversy over a
proposal that the legislature should be
structured on the federal analogy — rep-
resentation in the House of Delegates
being based on population while the
counties were given equal representation
in the Senate.57 In opposition it was
contended that Baltimore City was not
entitled to such representation, a large
proportion of its population being root-
less or "floating" without the stability
essential to assumption of civic responsi-
bilities. Specific objection was made to
counting aliens in determining the rep-
resentation Baltimore was entitled to,
the objection extending to the counting
of the "foreign born," even if natural-
ized.58
All of the opposition from the smaller
counties was not of such a nature, how-
ever. The representatives from Prince
George's, a medium-sized county at the
time, were opposed to full representation
for Baltimore not because of the num-
ber of delegates that Baltimore would
be entitled to but because they were
elected from multimember districts
rather than single member districts:
"The danger ... all the smaller coun-
ties have to fear, is not in the number of
61 2 debates of the constitutional
convention of the state of maryland,
1864, p. 1033 ff. (Bayly'sed. 1864).
58 Id. at 1037.
142
|
representatives Baltimore is entitled to
send here, but the fact that by the con-
stitution of the State they are organized
into a great political unit."69 An even
more telling consideration, however, was
that United States senators were elected
by the state legislatures, in accordance
with Article I, Section 3, of the United
States Constitution. Giving Baltimore
full representation in the House would
have given the city at least a veto on the
selection of the State's senators.
The convention solved the apportion-
ment problem by dividing Baltimore
into three legislative districts60 and
providing for the election of delegates,
on a weighted basis, from each of these
districts and the counties as follows:
For each 5,000 population, or frac-
tion thereof greater than one-half,
1 delegate until a total of five
delegates was reached.
For the next 20,000 population, or
fraction thereof greater than oner
half, one delegate.
For each 80,000 population there-
after, or fraction thereof greater
than one-half, one delegate.61
It will be noted that this formula broke
new ground in Maryland for it was the
first apportionment formula that put no
upper limit on Baltimore's representa-
tion. Conversely, the districting and the
weighting ensured that the city would
not dominate the House of Delegates.62
59 Id. at 1044.
60 md. const, art. III, § 2 (1864).
61 md. const, art. III, § 4 (1864).
62 It also ensured that Baltimore would not
control the election of Maryland's U. S.
senators. In 1866 an act of Congress required
that any failure of the two houses of a state
legislature to agree on a choice for U. S.
senator be resolved through an election con-
ducted in a joint session of the two houses.
Had the House of Delegates been apportioned
on the basis of population, the Baltimore
delegation would have controlled the senatorial
elections. 14 Stat. 243 (1866).
|
