increase of antagonist power and a fearful de-
crease of our own how can we regard the Sen-
ate as a protection ?
He thought the best and only protection for
their political rights was to continue in their
own hands all the political power they have. He
had no faith in the ultra, generosity which was
willing to surrender a portion of its political
power by a community. He believed such a
thing never did occur, unless an equivalent in
some other form was expected.
He was not disposed to repeat, what he had so
often said, as to the imputed injustice to the
large counties—and especially as to the city of
Baltimore.
Experience growing out of the increase in their
representation in 1836, had proved that it only
occasioned still further extension of their de-
mands. This Convention was one of its fruits.
How or why we were to avoid another Conven-
tion, or "peaceful revolution," or some move-
ment by whatsoever name it might assume,
when this representation now proposed, should
so materially increase their strength, he could
not perceive.
He had no faith in any voluntary forbearance
when the power was given them for further ag-
gression. The city of Baltimore, with a repre-
sentation not larger than the largest county.
would still have u immense influence in the leg-
islature—an influence fully equal to what she
was entitled to exert.
Gentlemen talked here very strongly about
representing a hundred and seventy thousand
sould. How, he asked, is the fact? How many
of these are voters? How many can claim to be
citizens even? And of these, how many have no
permanent interest there, and have not even a
permanent residence? Again, of the number
who had any claim to be represented, it must be
remembered, that a large portion were not. in
fact, represented either now, by the members on
this floor from that city, or habitually in the leg-
islature by the delegates elected. A very large
portion differed with these representatives on
roost important and vital political question; and
in no far were misrepresented.
The same was the case in some of the largest
counties. Take Frederick for example, where
the political parties were about equally divided
Now, if the whole number of votes cast should
be ten thousand one hundred, and of these, there
should be five thousand who expressed an un-
willingness to be represented by a particular in-
dividual, they would neutralize that number of
antagonist votes, and the member might be con-
sidered as representing but the. excess—the one
hundred.
Take, on the contrary, a smaller county where
political opinion being almost entirely one way,
the member had received nearly an unanimous
vote it could not properly be said that the constit-
uency represented by these different members was
to be determined by the proportion of the aggregate
number of voters in their respective districts. If
it should be said they represented each individu-
al, then he would retort the question, why should |
one individual in Baltimore be represented by
fen delegates, and an individual in Kent by two
only ? There was no equality in this You al-
low my neighbor to vote for ten members of the
Legislature and allow me to vote for but two,
and call this equality! No, no! That won't do.
Well, if it be said these members represent com-
munities, including all persons within certain
geographical limits, to this he assented. They
do represent communities—one set of them re-
present the city and the others represent the
counties, and each county, being a separate and
distinct community, is entitled to its separate
and equal representation. This was exactly the
primitive creed—the primitive practice and the
true orthodox creed and practice. It was under
this system the State had been exalted to its high
condition of physical, moral and intellectual ad-
vancement—it was under this system that the
city of Baltimore had made such gigantic strides
to commercial wealth and eminence. That was
the mode of distributing political power, by pur-
suing which we had made Maryland what the is.
It was not by adopting and practising upon a false
theory—-the universal truth of political dogmas—
broad and unqualified general principles—which,
practically, are not true.
We hear much about the perfect, complete
equality of political rights—we hear it—but do
we see it? Is it practically so, that one man and
every man, is politically equal to any other ?
May, can you by any human means make him so?
If so : if one man, in a political sense, is equal to
another, he has, or ought to have, as much poli-
tical control in the affairs of government. Is this
the case ? Do we not daily see one man control
ten, twenty, thirty, fifty voters ? Are these
voters thus controled, each of them exercising
the same influence on the government as the one
who controls their votes? Station, intelligence,
reputation, wealth and other accidental adven-
titious causes will, and do, and must make, as
they always have made men unequal. You may
impose all the restraints you can upon one class,
grant all the indulgencies you please to the other,
the inexorable law of human existence will ren-
der your legislation nugatory. Why, what is
daily before our eyes—seen by us all? Are
we all equal here, in political influence and con-
trol? We all have the same source of political
being—we are all elected as members entitled
to the same political power, we each give a sin-
gle vote, on a question, and each vole counts
alike. No human legislation can do more to give
us equal political control here, and yet how is
the fact? is it not, that some experienced, intel-
ligent members, long and favorably known as
possessing the confidence of their political friends,
can and do exert an influence upon others which
the rest of us never may dare to look for? Cer-
tainly it is, and must be so, and should be so.
Wise and judicious counsels should guide those
of us who, though not able to make a way, may
walk in it when discovered for us.
Now, in all this, let the city of Baltimore be
considered as completely answered, when she
complains of the small number, comparatively, |
