Mr. MERRICK then acquiesced in the decision
of the Chair, and gave notice that be would here-
after move to amend said report by striking out
all the first part of the second section, down to
the word "rule," in the fifth line, and inserting
in lieu thereof the following:
"The members of the House of Delegates,
shall be apportioned to the several counties of
the State, and the city of Baltimore in conformity
with the following rule."
The question was then declared to be on the
substitute of Mr. SCHLEY.
Mr. JOHN NEWCOMER called for a division of
the question, but withdrew the motion.
Mr. SCHLEY called for the yeas and nays on
his amendment, which were ordered.
Mr. BISER called for the reading of the proposi-
tion, (which was read.)
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent. I understand the
question is on the adoption of the proposition of
the gentleman from Washington, (Mr. Schley.)
The CHAIR. It is.
Mr. JOHN NEWCOMER, I renew my call for a
division of the question.
Mr. MERRICK. The Chair will now see the
effect of the interpretation given to the rule.
Some conversation followed as to the precise
condition of the question on the part of Messrs.
MERRICK, BISER and MCLANE.
Mr. HOWARD suggested to the gentleman from
Washington, (Mr John Newcomer,) that the
matter would be much simplified if the gentle-
man would withdraw his call for a division.
Mr CHAMBERS, of Kent, explained that no pos-
sible advantage could result from insisting upon
a division,
Mr, JOHN NEWCOMER again withdrew his call
for a division.
The question was again stated to be on the
amendment of Mr. SCHLEY.
Mr. BUCHANAN called for the reading of the
proposition, which was again read.
Mr. TUCK. Before the vote is taken, I desire
to put a question to the gentleman from Wash-
ington, (Mr. Schley.) Is this proposition pre-
dicated upon the gross population, or upon federal
number ?
Mr. SCHLEY. On federal numbers.
Mr. TUCK said:
He rose to protest in limine against the adop-
tion of any such basis as that now presented.
He would not vote for any plan of representation
predicated on federal numbers alone. He could
not do so without outraging the sentiment
of his constituents, and doing violence to their
interests. He considered that it was a general
understanding months ago, that on this question
there would be no distinction between the slave
and free—the black and white—but that the gross
population should be taken into the computation
of numbers; and that whatever compromise was
made it would be on this basis, as far as num-
bers were concerned. Some weeks ago when
the reports were made by the committee on re-
presentation, a gentleman from Baltimore, [Mr.
Presstman,] in strong terms denounced the plan
of the gentleman from Kent, [Mr. Chambers,] as |
improperly and unjustly including blacks as well
as whites; and he said that this basis was not re-
cognized in the Constitution of any State of the
Union.
Mr. GWINN said that the impression of his col-
league was wrong, as several States had the
mixed basis—as South Carolina, Georgia, and
two or three others.
Mr, TUCK resumed. He had examined the
Slate Constitutions with reference to this very
question; and was about to remark, when inter-
rupted, that he did not at the time understand
Mr. P. as speaking with precise accuracy but from
his general recollections of the facts—the debate
having so suddenly sprung up that it could hard-
ly have been otherwise. Nor had he referred to
it for the purpose merely of signalizing the mis-
take of the gentleman from Baltimore city, but
to show that even if he was not greatly mistaken
on that point, it was evident from an examina-
tion of the Constitutions, that there is no settled
rule or principle among the States on the ques-
tion of representation.
In North Carolina the rule of federal numbers
prevails. In Georgia the House of Delegates is
based on the number of free whites and three-
fifths of all the blacks—not on the whites, free
blacks and three-fifths of slaves, which is the
rule of federal numbers. In the State of Flori-
da the representation is based on the number of
whites and three-fifths of the slaves, excluding
the free blacks. In thirty States, (excluding
California,) there are fourteen different modes of
representation, and not more than five States
have adopted the same rule, nor have any two of
these applied the rule in the same manner, in
some the delegates are apportioned according to
the number of qualified voters; in others, upon
gross numbers; in others, according to the num-
ber of taxable inhabitants; in others, according
to the number of free males, and other modes
prevail in other States. They appear to have
acted on the leading cardinal doctrine of repub-
lican governments " that the welfare and happi-
ness of the greatest number must be consulted
and promoted with the least possible injury to
the smallest number." If the authority of per-
sons in high places can have weight, he could
refer to the inaugural address of the present Go-
vernor, who may he deemed sufficiently orthodox
by some in this body. This principle was enun-
ciated and approved by him. It is the true doc-
trine, and all rules for the arrangement of the
powers of government, must be subordinate to
this high purpose. We need not go to the Carolinas
or other States for rules on this subject, if
our situation and diversity of interests require a
rule peculiar to ourselves, we can adopt a basis
of representation or other policy in accordance
with it, without doing violence to any republican
principle.
We have different, if not conflicting interests;
agitating questions may arise; our duty is to pre-
serve harmony, reconcile differences, and pro-
mote the welfare and happiness of all sections of
the State. The agricultural, farming, planting,
commercial, and manufacturing sections are all
entitled to protection. Their pursuits and inter- |
