earnestness, for they might break up in confu-
sion, or their labors might not be ratified by the
people. Where would these dissenting delegates
then stand? The finger of odium would be
pointed to them, as the men who would not com-
promise, even when a compromise was offered,
and thus defeated the object of the Convention.
He would not say more, because what he had
said would apply to every possible amendment
that could be brought forward. He had only
said this much, because he thought from recent
proceedings, that every offering of liberality,
would be scorned and thrown back in their
faces.
MR. MERRICK said:
That the amendment proposed by his col-
league, (Mr. Jenifer,) provided that no county
should have less than three delegates. No coun-
ties would have less than three under the bill he
had reported, except Calvert and Caroline, they
lacking but two or three hundred of having a
sufficient fraction to entitle them to a third del-
egate. He saw not great objection to the amend-
ment.
MR. JENIFER said:
That his amendment did not affect the principle
of the bill in any manner whatever. It merely
gave to two counties which were excluded by the
bill, from having three delegates-that number of
delegates, placing them on an equal footing with
the other counties.
The question was then taken on the amend-
ment of MR. JENIFER:
And it was rejected by the following vote:
Ayes 35, noes 49.
MR. MERRICK called the attention of the Chair
to the fact, that two substitutes had been report-
ed to the Convention, from the committee on re-
presentation, which he thought were not pend-
ing for consideration.
MR. SPENCER was of the opinion, that these
amendments were in fact only pending ex gratia,
and that they were not known except by the
consent of the Convention-referring to the exec-
utive report made by MR. GRASON, to sustain his
position.
Some conversation ensued in reference to this
point of order, between
MESSRS. BROWN, MERRICK, SPENCER, BOWIE,
and CHAMBERS, when
THE PRESIDENT decided that the substitutes
were not before the Convention, and that it was
at the discretion of the gentlemen who had sub-
mitted them either to offer them or to withdraw
them.
The question was then taken by yeas and nays,
on agreeing to the second section as amended.
Before the result was announced,
MR. JENIFER rose and stated that he voted for
this section as a compromise measure, to his
friends of the city of Baltimore; but as it was
not so, he would vote against it; and he accord-
ingly had his vote changed from the affirmative
to the negative side of the question.
MR. BRENT, of Charles also rose and stated,
that he individually preferred the proposition of
the gentleman from Kent, (Mr. Chambers,) but in
a decision announced by the Chair, it had been
|
stated that this vote was not upon the final adop-
tion of this proposition.
He supported it, because he was desirous that
the bill, as proposed by the chairman of the
committee, (Mr. Merrick,) should be perfected.
He did not desire, therefore, to change his
vote.
The yeas and nays were then read as follows:
Affirmative-Messrs. Sellman, Brent of Charles,
Merrick and Annan-4.
Negative-Messrs. Buchanan, Pres't., pro tem.,
Morgan, Blakistone, Hopewell, Ricaud, Lee,
Chambers of Kent, Mitchell, Donaldson, Dor-
sey, Wells, Randall, Kent, Weems, Dalrymple,
Jenifer, Howard, Bell, Welch, Chandler, Lloyd,
Dickinson, sherwood of Talbot, John Dennis,
Crisfield, Williams, Hicks, Goldsborough, Ec-
cleston, Phelps, Chambers of Cecil, McCul-
lough, Miller, McLane, Bowie, Tuck, Sprigg,
McCubbin, Bowling, Spencer, George, Dirick-
son, McMaster, Fooks, Shriver, Gaither, Biser,
Sappington, McHenry, Magraw, Nelson, Thaw-
ley, Stewart of Caroline, Hardcastle, Gwinn,
Stewart of Baltimore city, Brent of Baltimore
city, Sherwood of Baltimore city, Presstman,
Ware, Schely, Fiery, Neill, John Newcomer,
Harbine, Davis, Kilgour, Brewer, Waters,
Weber, Hollyday, Slicer, Fitzpatrick, Smith,
Parke, Shower, Cockey and Brown-78.
So the section as amended was not agreed
to.
MR. CHAMBERS, of Kent, moved to insert the
following as the second section:
"Every county, having a population of less
than fifteen thousand souls shall be entitled to
three delegates—every county having a popula-
tion of fifteen thousand souls, and less than twenty-five
thousand shall be entitled to four dele-
gates; every county having a population of twenty-five
thousand and less than thirty-five thou-
sand souls, shall be entitled to five delegates;
and every county having a population of more
thirty-five thousand souls shall be entitled to six
delegates, and the city of Baltimore shall be en-
titled to the same number of delegates as the
county which shall be entitled to the largest re-
presentation."
The question being on agreeing to the amend-
ment.
Mr. CHAMBERS asked the yeas and nays,
Which were ordered.
A motion was made to adjourn, which was not
agreed to
Mr. SHOWER gave notice of his intention to
move a reconsideration of the vote of the Con-
vention rejecting the amendment offered by Mr.
FIERY, to the second section of the report.
The question was then taken on the amend-
ment of Mr. CHAMBERS, and it was rejected by
the following vote:
Affirmative—Messrs. Morgan, Blakistone, Hopewell,
Ricaud Lee, Chambers of Kent, Mitchell,
Dorsey, Wells, Randall, Kent, Weems, Dalrym-
ple, Bond Brent of Charles, Jenifer, John Den-
nis, Crisfield, Williams, Hicks, Goldsborough,
Eccleston, Phelps, Bowie, Tuck, Sprigg, McCub-
bin, Bowling, Dirickson, McMaster, Fooks, Da-
vis, Kilgour, and Waters—34. |
