|
46 The Maryland Constitution of 1851. [424
There were two minority reports made from the com-
mittee on representation; one by Mr. Lloyd, of Talbot
county (a Democratic district), giving to Baltimore City
five more delegates than the largest county and equal rep-
resentation in the Senate.23 The second minority report
submitted by Mr. Chambers, of Kent county, was the same
plan adopted in 1836 in all respects, except that it adopted
the aggregate population as a basis instead of federal
numbers.24 All of these plans for a basis of representation
were rejected by the convention.
There were several compromises offered, but none upon
which the convention could agree. Baltimore City was
willing to compromise on a territorial basis in the Senate;
but claimed popular representation in the House of Dele-
gates. They considered this would be a sufficient check
to prevent any legislation detrimental to the counties.
The plan of representation, which received the greatest
attention and support was known as the " Washington
county compromise/' It was introduced by Mr. Fiery of
that county. The plan was based on federal numbers. If
adopted, it would have given Baltimore City four more
delegates than the largest county.25 This compromise was
rejected, afterwards reconsidered, and finally lost by a vote
of forty-seven to forty-six.26
The question of apportioning representation was finally
disposed of April 1. The plan was introduced by ex-Gov-
ernor Grason, of Queen Anne's county,27 subsequently
amended so as to give Baltimore City one additional rep-
resentative, and finally adopted by a vote of forty-three to
forty.28 Representation in the House of Delegates was ap-
portioned among the counties on a population basis; Balti-
more City was limited in the House to four more delegates
than the most populous county. No county was to have
23 Debates, vol. i, p. 286. 24 Debates, vol. i, p. 287.
25 Debates, vol. ii, p. 19. 26 Debates, vol. ii, p. 170.
27 Debates, vol. ii, p. 197. 28 Debates, vol. ii, p. 199.
|
