423]            The Maryland Constitution of 1864.                77

Baltimore and Kent counties. The latter county fell only
153 short of the necessary population required for two
delegates,¹⁶⁴ and the former claimed an additional delegate
for the reason that its population of 46,722 placed it within
the arbitrary twenty-thousand rule, so that it had only six
delegates, one more than Allegany for instance, which had
19,507 population, less than half of that of Baltimore
County. It was finally decided near the close of the Con-
vention to give Kent the extra delegate, but Baltimore
County was held down to the letter of the rule adopted.¹⁶⁵

It is interesting to note that throughout the considera-
tion of this question the members of the majority made
comparatively few speeches, and even then made no seri-
ous attempt to answer the extensive arguments brought
forth by the minority.¹⁶⁶ These latter took the ground
that their opponents were attempting to deprive the south-
ern counties of their proper political influence,¹⁶⁷ to give
Baltimore City the position of three counties,¹⁶⁸ and that
as soon as slavery was abolished even a three-fifths rule
held no longer, but the whole population became the joint
basis of apportionment.¹⁶⁹ It was all in vain, however,
for now they only succeeded in procuring the additional
delegate for Kent. The majority were evidently not going
to lose this opportunity of settling old scores, and in addi-
tion might have urged the old excuse that it was neces-
sary to strengthen the supporters of the National Adminis-
tration in Maryland by weakening the power of their op-
ponents.

The article on the Legislative Department contained
numerous other changes, mostly in the direction of lim-
iting the power of the General Assembly to act in certain
cases.¹⁷⁰ Taking the most important in the order in which

¹⁶⁴ Deb., iii, 1658.                ¹⁶⁵ Proc., 639-42; Deb., iii, 1655-76.

¹⁶⁶ Deb., ii, 1032-59, 1060-78.                              ¹⁶⁷ Deb., ii, 1034.

¹⁶⁸ Deb., ii, 1038.                                                 ¹⁶⁹ Deb., ii, 1041.

¹⁷⁰ Might this not have been a result of the struggle over the
"Frederick" Legislature of 1861?