The question being then taken upon the motion of Mr. CUSHING to strike out, it was not agreed to. Mr. SANDS. I am glad the gentleman finds | cause it is in accordance with the progress of the gentleman from Prince George's (Mr. the age. The members of the House of ReClarke) and myself working together at last. presentatives are called alphabetically, and I Mr. CLARKE. I think the gentleman and see no reason why we should not be. Our myself still differ entirely, and I think the names were called alphabetically this morngentleman from Baltimore city (Mr. Cushing) ing by the Assistant Secretary, and it was does not understand either the position of the perfectly satisfactory to the members of the gentleman from Howard (Mr. Sands) or of Convention. I think the rule ought to stand myself. as reported by the committee. The amendment of the gentleman from Howard county, (Mr. Sands, ) I am of opinion, defeats itself. If my understanding of its reading is correct, it proposes an alphabetical arrangement of the delegations from each county, as they stand, as such, which would amount to nothing more than calling their names promiscuously. Hence, if the rule as reported, be not adopted, the Convention may as well adhere to the old custom of calling the delegations by counties. But I much prefer the calling of the names of the members alphabetically, because it comports with the spirit of the age, and is more convenient. I should judge from the fact that the names were thus called this morning, that the Secretary, under the expectation that we should adopt the rule, had had the list of names printed in that way. Mr. PARRAN. I think the phraseology of this rule might be somewhat improved by changing the order of the words, and I therefore move to strike out the words "at any time thereafter," and to insert the same after the words "shall be in order." The amendment was agreed to. "Upon calls of the Convention, or in taking the yeas and nays on any question, the names of the members shall be called by counties in alphabetical order." I offer this because if arranged alphabetically the delegations are divided and very frequently members will miss the call of their names; but when called by counties the call of one member from a county is a notification to each of the others that his name is near at hand. I simply desire that we may vote by counties. Mr. JONES of Somerset. It has been uniformly the rule here, I believe, in Convention and in legislation, to call by counties, and this rule is a departure from it. Certainly it seems more convenient that a delegation should be called together than that their names should be called alphabetically, so that they may answer at one time, and calling one may notify others of the delegation and save the necessity of calling their names a second time. I hope we shall continue to call by counties, as we have heretofore been in the habit of doing. Mr. DANIEL. The lists have all been printed in this way, and I see no difficulty arising from calling one member of a delegation at one time and another at another time. It seems to me most convenient to call the names in alphabetical order. Members can consult together as well as now, to determine which way they will vote. Mr. SANDS. The fact that the rules have been printed as they are does not interfere with our adopting this amendment. We have already changed them in other respects; and we can change them in this provided it effects a public good, and I believe it does, for the reason suggested by the gentleman from Somerset (Mr. Jones) that a call of one member is a notification to other members. Mr. KENNARD. We should adhere to the rule,, if there were no other argument, be Mr. SANDS. I did not suppose we could make an alphabetical call which would correspond to the list by counties at all; but I merely desired that the counties should be alphabetically arranged, beginning with Anne Arundel. Mr. PETER. I think, as a matter of convenience, the order of the names should remain as it is; because if alphabetically arranged, we can at once determine how near we are to voting, by merely referring to the list, but if arranged as proposed by the gentleman from Howard, this would be very difficult, unless in the list each county were to be stated. Mr. BERRY of Baltimore county. With the provision that the name of the President is to head the list, an amendment which I will propose, I like the rule for one reason assigned by the gentleman from Baltimore city, (Mr. Kennard,) and to which the gentleman from Howard has referred this morning, that it is an established rule or custom in Congress. I think it has another advantage, in its present form, that it makes gentlemen think for themselves, and not catch the answer of the first one on their delegation, as I know has been the habit very frequently in our Legislatures. I think that is the strongest reason that can be adduced in favor of this, that it allows gentlemen to think for themselves, and vote for themselves, and not come in and say-How did so-and-so vote? and follow his lead. I am decidedly in favor of the rule, beading the list with the name of the President. Mr. HEBB. The gentleman cites the action of Congress with regard to this amendment, but the rule adopted by Congress did not suit him upon the other question; and that was one reason why I supposed the other proposition would be carried, because it was a rule of Congress. The principal reason why I favor the amendment is that the counties vote together, and the first name called reminds all the other gentlemen of that delegation that it is time for them to vote; but if they are called alphabetically, the answers will come from that side and this side, that corner and this corner, and it will be difficult for a delegate to recognise his name, unless paying especial attention to the call of the roll. I suppose the Secretary had this list printed in alphabetical order because he expected this rule would be adopted here; but he will have them printed in the other order if instructed to do so. Mr. BERRY of Baltimore county. I did not quote the rule of Congress exactly because it suited myself, but as the gentleman applied it in the former case I certainly supposed he would fall into it in the second. The amendment was rejected-ayes 32; noes 33. Mr. BERRY, of Baltimore county, moved to insert after the words "the names of the members," the words, "beginning with the ent." The motion was agreed to. Mr. CLARKE said: To that rule I offer the amendment on page 58th of the Journal, at the close of the rules to adopt in lieu of Rule 49th the following rule to be inserted as Rule 49th: "The Standing Rules of the Convention shall not be suspended except by a vote of at least two-thirds of the members present." This amendment is in its words precisely like Rule 51 of the House of Delegates, which is this: "No Standing Rule or Order shall be rescinded or changed without one day's notice being given of the motion therefor. Nor shall any Rule be suspended except by a vote of at least two-thirds of the members present." By referring to Rule 55th reported by the Committee, it will be seen to embrace the first sentence of this rule: question without any notice whatever, and we may be compelled to deal with questions without any previous knowledge of them, which could not be done under the standing rules. If the amendment is adopted as I propose, that the Rules shall not be suspended without a two-thirds vote, it will still be in the power of any gentleman who does not like the rules to offer an amendment to change the rules. We shall then understand what the change is to be, and the next day the majority can so modify the rule, if they choose. To require two-thirds of the members present to suspend the Rules is a safeguard which is given in every legislative body; and unless adopted we are exactly in such a position that we might as well have no rules whatever. Mr. BERRY of Baltimore connty. I move to amend by striking out the word present, and inserting the word "elected." Mr. CLARKE accepted the amendment to the amendment. The amendment as modified was rejected. Mr. CLARKE renewed the amendment in its original form; and demanded the yeas and nays upon its adoption. The yeas and nays were ordered; and the question being taken the result was-yeas 26 ; nays 46-as follows: Yeas-Messrs. Goldsborough, President; Berry of Prince George's, Briscoe, Brown, Carter, Chambers, Clarke, Crawford, Daniel, Dennis, Duvall, Earle, Edelen, Gale, Harwood, Henkle, Jones of Somerset, Lansdale, Marbury, Mitchell, Miller, Morgan, Parran, Peter, Pugh, Scott-26. Nays-Messrs. Abbott, Annan, Audoun, Baker, Berry of Baltimore county, Brooks, Cunningham, Cushing, Davis of Washington, Ecker, Galloway, Greene, Hatch, Hebb, Hoffman, Hopkins, Hopper, Jones of Cecil, Keefer, Kennard, King, Larsh, Mace, Markey, McComas, Mullikin, Murray, Negley, Nyman, Parker, Purnell, Robinette, Russell, Sands, Schley, Schlosser, Smith of Worcester, Sneary, Stockbridge, Swope, Sykes, Thomas, Thruston, Valliant, Wickard, Wooden-46. So the amendment was rejected. Mr. JONES of Somerset moved to amend the rule by striking out the word "present" and inserting the words "elected to this Conre-vention." "No Standing Rule or Order shall be scinded or changed without one day's notice being given of the motion therefor." I would simply suggest with reference to Rule 49th, as reported by the Committee, that if that be adopted we may as well have no rules at all. It places it in the power of a majority of the members at any time to suspend the rules. In other words there is no protection, no understanding of the regular order of business, no knowing what is to come up in the Convention. Reports of Standing Committees, or Unfinished Business may be properly in order under this standing rule; but a bare majority can take up any The PRESIDENT ruled the amendment identical with that of Mr. Berry, already voted upon, and therefore out of order. Mr. MILLER I move to amend by inserting "three-fifths of," so as to read "threefifths of the members present." Mr. CLARKE. I understood the amendment voted upon to be an amendment to my amendment, on page 58; whereas the gentleman from Somerset moves an amendment to the rule itself, on page 55. The PRESIDENT. That is correct. The mo tion of the gentleman from Somerset (Mr. Jones) is in order. Mr. MILLER. I move to amend the amend-jection is made, then a majority of the memment by inserting "three-fifths," so as to bers shall decide upon the question of enread "three-fifths of the members elected to grossment; after the engrossment of a report this Convention," instead of a majorlty. I is ordered, the Secretary shall have the same think there ought to be some restraint upon printed as engrossed." the power of the majority of the members to change the rules. The Convention has decided that two-thirds is too large a number; and I think that three-fifths might be very properly considered as giving a sufficient stability to the rules as adopted. Mr. KENNARD. If the amendment should be adopted it would require 58 members to suspend the rules. When the question is put upon engrossing the report for a third reading, there might be objection, and it is not clear, and the House might be unable to determine what to do. The other portion of the amendment was suggested by my colleague (Mr. Stirling) who stated that when bills were ordered to be engrossed it had not been the custom actually to engross them or to have them The amendment to the amendment was re-printed with the amendments adopted upon jected. The question recurred upon the amendment moved by Mr. JONES of Somerset. Mr. BERRY of Baltimore county. Before deciding that question, I simply desire to suggest the very great importance of this matter. I understand the rule to be now that the rules may be suspended by a majority of the House. I am by no means satisfied that the political majority of this House will always be present. There may be a time when the political minority may be in the majority. It is to guard against any difficulty of that kind that I think it right and necessary-and I ask gentlemen here carefully to examine it-to require that a majority of the members elected to this Convention shall be required to suspend these rules. The amendment was rejected-ayes 30; noes 36. Mr. STOCKBRIDGE moved to strike out the words "a majority," and to insert the words "three-fifths." The amendment was adopted-ayes 37; noes 35. Mr. JONES of Somerset. I would suggest that it is possible that this 43d rule that we have adopted this morning so emphatically may be suspended by a vote of three-fifths of a bare quorum. I would move to amend this rule by inserting after the words "The Rules," the words "except the 43d." Mr. CLARKE. I suggest to the gentleman that a suspensiou of the rules is not a change of the rules at all. There is a regular order of business. The order of business can be changed, by suspending the rules, by a vote of three-fifths of the members present. But no rule can be changed without one day's notice thereof. In order to change Rule 43d, it would be necessary that notice should be given according to Rule 55. Suspension only refers to the order of business, and not to the direct change of a positive rule adopted by the Convention. Mr. JONES of Somerset. That obviates the difficulty, and I withdraw the amendment. Rule 53d having been read, Mr. KENNARD said: I move to amend this rule by inserting after the words "engrossed for a third reading" the following: "If ob the second reading. It is to meet this that I offer the second branch of the amendment. Mr. BERRY of Baltimore county. I should like to understand what the chairman of the committee means by the word engrossment." I know that it is the established parliamentary custom that when a bill is engrossed the Convention or legislative body has no control over it. It is the written law. I want this to be understood before we act upon it. Mr. KENNARD. My colleague stated that when a bill had been ordered to be engrossed it had not been the custom for that bill to be brought before the body in a printed form with the emendations of the second reading. The object of my amendment was to meet that difficulty. I may not have framed it in the most satisfactory manner, but this was what I intended to provide for, that when ordered to be engrossed the reports should be re-written and printed. The PRESIDEnt. It was the impression of the Chair that when a bill was engrossed, it was placed on file and it was not in order further to amend it. Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. The custom has grown out of the very loose way of doing things in the Legislature. The term "engrossed for a third reading" means that the bill shall be re-written, with all the amendments which have been adopted incorporated in the bill as a whole. After it has been so consolidated in one paper and engrossed, it comes before the House for a third reading in full as a whole; and then, if it is adopted, it passes into the files in the office of the Clerk of the Court of Appeals. But the custom here has been not to have it engrossed between the second and third reading, but to pass it, sometimes the next day, often the same day, and leave the engrossing clerk to prepare the engrossed copy after its final passage. The object of this amendment, as I understand it, is that this engrossment shali actually take place. If members desire it, for the purpose of distinctly understanding the matter before them, it may be printed before its third reading and the vote upon its final passage is taken. I can see no objection to the amendment. Mr. JONES of Somerset. If after it is engrossed it is in order to amend it, it must be re-engrossed. I think it ought not to be engrossed until it is finally acted upon by the Convention. The PRESIDENT. The usual parliamentary course is that when a bill has been engrossed it is not susceptible of amendment. Of course the Convention may adopt any rule they please. Mr. KENNARD. It is susceptible of amendment on the third reading, by this very rule. The PRESIDENT. That would necessitate the re-engrossment of the bill. Mr. JONES of Somerset. At the proper time I shall move to amend by taking out the words "except by the consent of the ma- | jority of the members elected to the Convention." to. The amendment of Mr. KENNARD was agreed Mr. JONES of Somerset. I now move to strike out the exception at the end of the rule, and insert the words "and been engrossed," so that it shall read : "After any report of a committee has passed to a third reading and been engrossed, it shall not be in order to amend the same. Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. If the gentleman from Somerset will consider this matter a moment, perhaps he will waive his amendment. It may be very desirable to retain the power to amend an article until the very last moment. The Constitution, when it is completed, must be a symmetrical whole; and in order that it may be so, and that one article may correspond with another, we have already under the 44th Rule given great latitude to the right of reconsideration, providing that it may be done at any time. We may adopt an article to-day, and in deliberating upon another article next week, or three weeks hence, we may adopt some amendment which will render it necessary, in order that the articles should be consistent with each other, that the article adopted to-day should be amended. I would suggest that it is desirable that this power should be left in the hands of the majority of the whole Convention, or the majority of all the members present, to amend until the last moment, in order that the Constitution which we may adopt may be symmetrical. Mr. JONES of Somerset. As the only additional trouble will be engrossing it again, in case of amendment, I withdraw the amendment I have offered. Mr. CLARKE. I hardly know whether it is necessary, but I will offer an amendment to cover a point which may be doubtful and which I thought had been covered by a special rule. I move to insert after the words "second reading," the words "on which second reading it shall be open to amendment." Bills are always read for the purpose of being amended, clause by clause; and the idea of the committee was that the reports of committees should in like manner be read and be open to amendment. There is a provision which says that this body shall be governed by the rules of parliamentary practice, but the rules of parliamentary practice would not apply in this respect directly to reports. I move this amendment, therefore, in order to make it perfectly clear and distinct. The amendment was agreed to. Rule 54th, in relation to the previous question, having been read, Mr. HEBB moved to substitute for the entire rule, the following as an amendment: "The previous question shall be always in order in Convention, and shall be in this form: "Shall the main question be now put?" It shall only be admitted when demanded by a majority of the members present, and its effect shall be to put an end to all debate, and to bring the Convention to a direct vote upon pending amendments, and the section of the Constitution then under consideration. On a motion for the previous question, and prior to the seconding of the same, a call of the Convention shall be in order, but after a majority shall have seconded such motion, no call shall be in order prior to a division of the main question; and on the previous question there shall be no debate." Mr. HEBB said: I will state the difference between the rule offered by myself and that offered by the committee in their report. The committee divide the previous question into two questions, one called the main question and the other the previous question. By section 1st, "The main question on the report of any committee shall only be called after the said report has passed to its third reading." The proposition that I offer gives the benefit of the main question on any amendment. By section 2, the previous question "may be called on any amendment offered to the report of any committee, when the same is on its second reading; and when demanded by a majority of the members present, it shall, until it is decided, preclude all further amendment and debate on the question before the Convention; but shall not preclude further amendments while the said report is on its second reading." For instance, when a section of the Constitution is under consideration, and one amendment has been offered, and then a second amendment, the previous question could be called. According to my rule its operation will.be to take a vote upon the second amendment, then upon the first amendment, and then upon the section under consideration. In other words, when the Convention has signified that it is prepared to take the vote upon the section I see no reason why we should be denied the privilege of the main question upon the section under consideration. This is the exact rule which after consid erable wrargling was adopted by the last Convention. It will be found in the "proceedings" page 305; and was adopted, as appears on page 313. This is the rule in all legislative bodies; and the effect of the main question is as proposed by the amendment I have submitted. Mr. CLARKE. In drawing up this rule upon the previous question, the object of the committee was to meet the same difficulty which existed in the last Convention. The rules provide that reports of committees shall go through the same course as bills. The rule upon the previous question, as it stands in the present Rules of the House of Delegates is this: "Rule 23. The previous question shall be in this form, Shall the main question be now put ?" It may be called for on any question except on an amendment or other matter which cannot in its nature be postponed; and when demanded by a majority of the members present, it shall, until it is decided, preclude all further amendment and debate on the main question." Under the rules of the House of Delegates, and under the rules of most bodies, on the second reading of a bill there is no such thing as calling the previous question at all, because when the previous question is sustained it brings you to a vote upon the main question, and you cannot vote upon the main question until the bill is on its third reading. So upon the rules adopted by the House, if a report is on its second reading, and the previous question is called, the President must put the question shall the main question now put? and inasmuch as you have not passed through the second reading of the bill, there can be no such thing as a main or previous question at all. That was the very difficulty the last Convention met with. Therefore, in order to make this proposition plain upon the previous question, and in order to extend the call of the previous question, the committee made this subdivision, viz that upon the second reading of a measure, not being able under the rule of the House of Delegates or under the rules of other parliamentary bodies, to call for the main question, and it being desirable that to a certain extent the Convention should have the privilege of cutting off lengthy debate, the previous question should be called. That is, whenever an amendment is offered to a clause and a second amendment, it is in the power of the House to call the previous question upon that, and that previous question simply applies to the question before the Convention, viz. the amendments then pending. After acting upon them any other amendments may be offered. : So this rule, instead of cutting off or limiting the power of the Convention, in reference to the previous question, gives to the Convention a power of calling the previous ques tion which'under the present rules of the House of Delegates, and under the rule offered by the gentleman from Allegany county (Mr. Hebb) would not exist. He says the previous question having been demanded, its effect will be first to require a vote upon the amendments, and then upon the section itself. When we are upon the second reading of a bill we cannot put the main question, because we cannot vote upon the final passage of a bill until we are upon the third reading. Mr. HEBB. It may be an article or section. If a section is before the Convention, of course we shall take the vote upon the section, and not the whole article. Mr. CLARKE. While going through the reading of the bill for amendments, it is certainly in the power of the Convention to receive an amendment unless it is proposed by the call of the previous question upon the second reading of a report to cut off all further amendments. I never heard, in the House of Delegates or in any body, if undertaking upon the second reading of a measure, the proper time for effecting it by the House, to cut off amendments. The previous question has never been applied in that way. It is only to bring the House to a direct vote upon a proposition, and never to cut off amendment. Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. If the effect of the previous question in ordinary parliamentary practice be what the gentlemen from Prince George's Mr. Clarke) assumes it to be, I should most certainly prefer the 54th Rule as it stands. But it seems to me he must be in error as to the effect of the previous question. The form in which the previous question is always put, is, Shall the main question be now put? which I understand to be the main question before the House or Convention, the body which is to act upon it. The main question before the body, when a bill or article is upon its second reading, is not, Shall this article become a part of the Constitution? The main question before the body is upon the adoption of the particular article or particular amendment pending, as I understand it. If I am wrong in this, it will affect the whole subject. Everything depends upon what constitutes the main question in the ordinary parliamentary practice, when the previous question is called. Mr. CLARKE. I will only state that so far as my experience has gone in the Legislature, I have never known the calling of the previous question to operate as the gentleman understands it. The discussions upon the Convention Bill last winter, went on for a considerable time while the bill was on its second reading, and it was never once supposed that the previous question could be called on the second reading of the bill. The rule of the House expressly provides that the previous question shall not be called on an amendment. I find, upon turning to the |