a white man. In addition to that, every alien in
the city of Baltimore, where a large portion of
the population were aliens, was made equal to a
citizen in other countries where the population al-
most exclusively consisted either of native born
or of naturalised citizens. If any other than the
aggregate population were to be taken as the
basis of population, foreigners ought to be exclu-
ded also. Not being entitled to vote, hey had
no more right to be represented than a free negro
or a slave. So far as political rights were con-
cerned, they had none, and were entitled to none.
It appeared to him that the provision now offer-
ed would operate unjustly upon many counties.
though most beneficially in favor of Carroll and
Washington counties. In those counties but a
few hundred were lost; while in other counties,
as Baltimore and Frederick counties, would lose
between ten and eleven hundred. While, there-
fore, the proposition might operate favorably for
Allegany and Washington counties, and some
others, but he was satisfied it would be a serious
injury to others. Why the fraction should have
been changed from one-half to three-fourths, he
could not conceive. In Congress it had been the
practice to allow a representative for every
fraction more than a moiety of the ratio. The
only effect of the change would be to benefit
particular counties by taking away a vote from
other counties. The proposition under consid-
eration should not be adopted, unless the Con-
vention had determined to adopt the federal
numbers; and he understood that they were
agreed to adopt the aggregate population as the
basis under the new Constitution.
The question was then taken on the amend-
ment of MR. SCHLEY, and the result was as fol-
lows:
Affirmative-Messrs. Sappington, Schley, John
Newcomer, and Smith-4.
Negative-Messrs. Buchanan, Pres't., pro tem.,
Morgan, Blakistone, Hopewell, Lee, Chambers
of Kent, Mitchell, Donaldson, Dorsey, Wells,
Randall, Kent, Sellman, Weems, Dalrymple,
Bond, Brent of Charles, Merrick, Jenifer, How-
ard, Bell, Welch, Chandler, Lloyd, Dickinson,
Sherwood of Talbot, Crisfield, Williams, Hicks,
Goldsborough, Eccleston, Phelps, Chambers of
Cecil, McCullough, Miller, McLane, Bowie
Tuck, Sprigg, McCubbin, Bowling, Spencer,
George, Wright, Dirickson, McMaster, Fooks
Shriver, Gaither, Biser, Amman, McHenry, Ma-
graw, Thawley, Stewart of Caroline, Hardcas-
tle, Gwinn, Stewart of Baltimore city, Brent of
Baltimore city, Sherwood of Baltimore city,
Presstman, Ware, Fiery, Neill, Harbine, Davis,
Kilgour, Brewer, Waters, Weber, Hollyday,
Slicer, Fitzpatrick, Parke, Shower, Cockey, and
Brown-77.
So the substitute was rejected.
The question recurred on the amendment of
which MR. MERRICK had given notice.
MR. MERRICK waived his right for the present.
MR. SCHLEY then offered as a substitute for
said amendment, to strike out all after the words
"the House of Delegates, in the first line, second
section, and insert the following: |
|
"Shall consist of sixty-seven members, to be
apportioned among the several counties accord-
ing to the following ratio: Every county shall
elect one delegate for every seven thousand souls
it may contain, and for every fraction above half
of said number, there shall be allowed to every
county having such excess, one additional dele-
gate; the city of Baltimore shall be entitled to
the same number of delegates as the county which
shall be entitled to the largest representation,
and no county shall have less than two dele-
gates. "
Mr S. said, that the printed statement would
show the ratio under this amendment to be as
follows:
Counties. Basis 7000.
Allegany, - - - - - 3
Anne Arundel, -- --3
Howard, -----2
Baltimore City, ----6
Baltimore County, ----6
Carroll, ------3
Caroline, -----2
Calvert, - - - - - - 2
Cecil, - - - - - - 3
Charles, ------2
Dorchester, -----3
Frederick, - ----6
Harford, - - - - - 3
Kent, ------2
Montgomery,- - - - -2
Prince George's, - - -3
Queen Anne's, ----2
St. Mary's, -----2
Somerset, -----3
Talbot, - - - - - - 2
Washington, -----4
Worcester, - - - - -3
67
Mr. SCHLEY asked the yeas and nays, (which
were ordered.)
Mr, CHAMBERS, of Kent, said, that the propo-
sition now submitted by the gentleman from
Washington, (Mr. SCHLEY,) was avery different
one from that upon which the Convention had
just voted.
The House were aware that a very different
proposition had been offered in the shape of a
report by a minority of the committee, which was
now upon the files of the House. This proposi-
tion approximated more nearly to that than to
any other. It was quite within the range of pos-
sibility, that under a different state of things and
at a different stage of the session, this proposition
would not be unacceptable to some members
who would certainly very much prefer the pro-
position contained in the second column of the
printed tabular statement, it would be unpleas-
ant now to vote against a plan which ultimately
they might be disposed to advocate. If the other
plan failed, and if action was deferred upon this
proposition, it might receive very considerable
additional support. He would submit, therefore,
to the mover of the proposition, to withdraw it
for the present, for these reasons.
Mr. PHELPS stated that in voting for this pro- |
