1. No free negro or free mulatto shall come into or settle in this State after the adoption of this Constitution. 2. All contracts made with any free negro or free mulatto coming into the State contrary to the provisions of the foregoing section, shall be null and void; and any person who shall employ such free negro or free mulatto, or otherwise encourage him or her to remain in the State, shall be fined in a sum not less than fifty dollars, nor more than five hundred dollars for each offence: 3. All fines which may be collected for a violation of the provisions of this article, or any law which may hereafter be passed for the purpose of carrying the same into execution, shall be set apart and appropriated for the colonization or removal beyond the limits of the State of such negroes and mulattoes and their descendants as may be in the State at the adoption of this Constitution, and may be willing to emigrate. 4. The General Assembly shall have full power, and it is hereby made the duty of the same to pass all laws necessary to carry out effectually the provisions of this article. Mr. DANIEL demanded the yeas and nays, and they were ordered. Mr. CLARKE. This is a mere order of inquiry. It is a matter of deep importance to the State. It is a matter in which, I am free to state, my own constituents are divided. I do not know that my own delegation are entirely agreed upon it. But I have endeavored to present my views, plain, clear and distinct, in reference to it. Mr. BERRY of Prince George's. We have a precedent for legislation of this sort in several of the free States of the Union. Some years ago Indiana and Illinois, by their Legislatures, passed laws to prevent the immigration of free negroes into these States. Ohio has passed such a law, and it is now a law of that State. A bill of that character was introduced in the Legislature of Pennsylvania some 12 or 18 months ago. I do not know the fate of that bill, but I humbly apprehend that the same law now prevails there. The policy of the Northern States, the Non-Slaveholding States, has always been to get rid of their free negro population, for the evident purpose of encouraging the poor white people of the State, the laboring classes of those States; for if the free negroes are allowed to remain in the State their work comes in competition with that of the white laborer. I should suppose it would be a very popular measure in all free States, or in any State, to get rid of them; if they are free, to allow them to emigrate and form societies of their own. Mr. SANDS. If I understand the order it is simply to refer to a committee. I shall not object to its reference; but I desire to take this opportunity to express my views upon the subject matter of this order. We are here under peculiar circumstances. Our country is in peculiar circumstances. Right or wrong a vast majority of the people of Maryland consider the terrible national calamity upon us to-day as springing out of the slavery question-out of slavery itself. I do not choose to stop now to argue whether it is so or not; but that is the judgment of the large majority of the people of Maryland. What then ought we to do as white men of the State of Maryland? We see that society, communities and States, have been tossed as if by an earthquake. The negro has had his share of the tossing, and it has been a very hard share, although but little in fault. He has never been in your primary meetings, in your representative assemblages or elsewhere, to agitate for himself or about himself. He has been quiet, docile, obedient, and in many cases a willing servant for many long years. What do we propose to do? We were the superior and governing race. We have brought matters to the position they occupy to-day. While the poor negro with the white man has been thrown up in the air by these civil convulsions, he is to have no resting place for his foot when he lodges. I shall never give a vote here or elsewhere, never utter a word here or elsewhere, which puts any man in the position of saying that I dread for the white man the competition of the negro. I think the events of the last few months have totally exploded the doctrine of negro labor coming in competition with white labor, which used to be the great popular doctrine and cry before the people a year or two ago, when wages were but half what they are to-day when Maryland is virtually a free State. free State. It is a homely adage that "the proof of the pudding is the chewing," and it is often the case that these homely adages contain a great deal of truth. What is the condition of things to-day? An honest white man willing to labor can get all he can do, and more, and get such wages as were never paid him before. I do not choose to consider this further, for the idea of such a competition of wages is scarcely worthy of a working man. But here is the position in which we are called upon to act to-day. We have brought about the existing condition of things. It is not the negro. I am sorry to observe on too many sides, where I go, among those who have heretofore enjoyed the benefit of negro labor, and among those who never had it, that there is too much of a disposition utterly to ignore the humanity of the poor negro. As to the cry of negro equality, and as to adopting any Constitution or law or regulation which will put the negro upon an equality with the white man, politically or socially, I will fight it as long and as fiercely as any one. Because I am willing to say that a negro's rights are not those of a white man, I am not willing to say that he has no rights at all. I have this conviction, that when it) the thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds was permitted that from the Supreme tribunal of the United States should come a doctrine so horrible as this, that the negro had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, it was then predetermined that there should be war and calamity upon this nation. Mr. BRISCOE (interposing.) Will the gentleman tell me when the Supreme Court ever made such a decision? Mr. SANDS. They came very near it in the Dred Scott case. Mr. BRISCOE. It is not there. The Abolitionists of Massachusetts put that in. of thousands, turned loose by the chances of war? How are they to get to another land? How are they to acquire the means to carry them there? Itrow not, from the complexion of the views urged upon us here. I only ask that we shall give them a chance, give them time and opportunity to earn the means to carry themselves and their families there. When they have reached that position that they will desire to take part in the civil government of the land in which they live; when they find that the white man will never admit them to a share in the government here; and when they have had time to earn the means of going elsewhere; when you have excited in the negro the ambition of being a ruler, then, I say, is the time that the emigration of this race will commence in flood-tide. As to the reference of this order I shall not object to it, for I will not object to the reference of any order. But I could not let the occasion pass without putting on record my humble views in regard to our duty as a State, upon this subject. Mr. SANDS resumed. The assertion that the negroes have no rights in Massachusetts is met by the fact that they vote there, and do other things which I do not intend they shall do here. That is not the Massachusetts estimation of the negro. I am sorry in all cases to see the unwillingness to acknowledge the humanity of the negro. My view is this on the subject of the separation of the races, a subject I have considered to my entire satisfaction. I believe if there ever comes about what I long for and pray for, a complete Mr. CLARKE. I will merely say that when separation of the races, it is to come from I offered the order I hoped it would go to the emancipation and from colonization. Free committee without one word being said upon them; give them equal human rights, the this occasion. But the gentleman from How-. rights of husband and wife and parent. ard (Mr. Sands) reminds me of a young colt Give the negro the rights of a man, of a hus- the first time he is put in the harness. A band and father. Give him the right to simple order cannot be offered without the labor and to receive an equivalent for that gentleman's taking occasion to give us the labor. Give him the right to educate him-information that he has formed all his opinself, if he can, and his children. Bring him to the point where he will desire to take a part in the civil government of the land, and let him know that he can never do so; you will then have brought him to the point where the emigration of this race will begin in a perfect flood-tide. When he has become sufficiently educated to desire a voice in the government, and finds that here he can never be received as the equal of the white man, it is then that he will seek for himself a new country. This is the history of colonization everywhere. Look back over the history of the human race. Who have been the colonists in all time? They have been men cut off from the exercise of the political rights which they coveted at home. Whether white or black, that is their history. Now that we, the white men of the United States, have brought matters to the pass at which they stand to-day, in my humble judgment it does not become us to say that we dread the poor powerless negro. We must educate him for colonization. Then how is that colonization to be brought about? Who will furnish the ships to carry the negro to a distant land, or the means to establish himself there, unless you allow him to work for the means to carry him there? He must colonize himself. Yet he cannot find a foot of soil on which his own feet can rest. Are we to colonize to-day ions upon all these questions, and is very anxious to place himself on the record. I have no objection to it whatever. But I must say that I came here to be instructed by consultation, and to consider all these questions gravely and calmly. I do not propose to follow the gentleman either into his argument in reference to what produced this war, or in regard to anything in connection with war or slavery. I wish simply to bring the Convention down to the simple proposition embraced in this order. And when the time arrives for the consideration of that subject, the gentleman will find those that have brought it up for discussion as willing and as free to extend a helping hand to the negro as to the white man. When the gentleman attempts to measure with me, action according to the principles of humanity and charity, I shall not yield in any respect, upon any ground of action which is dictated by those high principles. What does the proposition I have offered embrace? Turning all the negroes who are in the State out of it? No sir. It says that no free negro or mulatto shall come from outside of the State of Maryland into the State to reside in the State. Does it touch one who is here now? Not at all, sir. It then goes on to provide Yet then goes on to provide penalties for those who may employ such as come here from outside of the State into the State. And in re ference to the doctrine of colonization, does my proposition suggest that you are to send them from the State, or sunder the ties which now exist between husband and wife, parent and child? It simply says that whatever funds may be collected from the violation of this law shall be applied to the colonization of those who may desire to leave the State. Is that bordering on barbarism? Is it a violation of humanity? Or is it simply putting at their disposition a fund which they may employ in going abroad with their own free consent? to work their lands by free negro labor instead of slave labor. The poor white man will not be able to rent an acre of land. He must work at the rate of free negro's wages or get nothing to do. Thus both the white land owner and the poor landless white man will be injured by admitting an influx of free negroes. But I did not propose to go into this matter. I had no idea of saying anything upon this subject, nor should I have done so but for the remarks of the gentleman from Howard (Mr. Sands.) I have said what I have, simply in justiee to myself, and to show that I have made no proposition based upon a scheme of inhumanity either to the white or the black. Mr. SANDS took the floor and desired ten minutes to reply, but the President stating that the hour had arrived for the unfinished business of yesterday to be taken up, Mr. Sands preferred not to ask of the Convention leave to proceed. RULES OF ORDER. I do not propose to go into this question of negro equality which the gentleman has raised, and which it was never the intention of this order to raise at all; for it says not one word with reference to the question of negro equality, which the gentleman has brought into this discussion. The order simply raises the question of the free negroes, of what shall be done with them. My constituents live on the borders of Washington city. We have there congregated thousands upon thousands, who have come up from the South, from all parts of the country. We have how in the State a population of 90,000 free negroes, besides a large slave population, who, it is intimated by the gentleman, are to be set free. Then the State is open to 200,000 now congregated within certain limits of Mr. HEBB modified his amendment by Washington city. The result will be that striking out the words "section of the ConPrince George's county, bordering on Wash-stitution then under consideration," and inington, will be overrun, and flooded with them. My constituents tell me that unless some such provision as this is adopted, they do not know whether they can leave their families in safety with such a class thrown upon the community. The Convention proceeded to the consideration of the unfinished business, being the report of the Committee-on Rules and Orders, the pending question being upon the amendment submitted by Mr. Hebb, as a substitute for Rule 54th. serting the words "special matter to which they relate ;" also, by striking out the words "division of," and inserting "vote upon; so that the amendment should read: "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 special matter to which they relate. 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 vote upon the main question; and on the previous question there shall be no debate." As to the competition between free black labor and free white labor, I do not pretend to say which will triumph. If the State is overrun with free negroes, they will have to work, if they do not want to starve, and they will come into competition with white men. White men will not get the labor which the blacks perform, unless they work at the same wages with the free negro. Unless therefore you adopt some such provision as this, you will reduce the wages of white men down to the level of those of the free negro. I say this as a question of political economy, and not at all as involved in the political question of their franchise. Unless you adopt some Mr. CLARKE. I would like to inquire how such provision, this will be the effect upon this will operate, in taking the vote upon the the poor white man. Now what will be the "pending amendments and the special matresult to the land owner? We shall make ter to which they relate." Does it mean this? the State a second Hayti or Jamaica. The Suppose we are upon the article on the Judiland will be held by few, and the land own- ciary, at the first section, upon the Court of ers will never reap the benefit from a rise in Appea's, and two amendments are offered. the value of their lands caused by a demand While these amendments are before the House from free white men. There is now in our and under debate, the previous question is community a large class of white men who called. Does this amendment mean that if are, in consequence of the loss of slave labor, the previous question is sustained we are to able to rent land. If the free negroes are ad- vote upon the whole subject of the Court of mitted the present land owners will continue Appeals without having gone through its second reading? If I understand it, that would be the proper construction of the rule with the modification made by the gentleman. Mr. HEBB. The meaning of the rule is this. If any subject matter is before the Convention, and two amendments have been made, the effect of the rule, if the previous question is sustained by the majority of the Convention, is to take a vote upon the second amendment, then upon the first amendment, and then upon the special matter to which the two amendments relate. Mr. CLARKE. Upon that section, or how many sections? T Mr. HEBB. It means that portion of the section under consideration, the special matter under consideration.. I think the words make it very clear; but if any alteration can be made to make it clearer, I shall not object. Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. It appears to me as the amendment is now proposed, and with this understanding of its meaning, it is an improvement upon the rule to which it is an amendment. To illustrate, as I understand. the amendment offered by the gentleman from Allegany, turn to the Constitution, and it will be found that the 17th section of. the Legislative article, has in it, 1st, the style of laws; 2d, the mode of enactment or repeal; 3d, provisions in relation to amendments; then a provision for a code; and then provisions relating to the rules of practice, pleadings, forms of conveyancing, &c. All these different matters are contained in that single section. I suppose it could never have been designed that when we had taken that up, and a motion was made to amend the part relating to the style of the laws, if the previous question were demanded and sustained, that would cover the whole article. The special matter, as I understand it, will be that portion of this section which relates to the style of the laws. The previous question will bring us to a direct vote upon the amendments and upon that portion of the section; and then the next subject matter comes, before us for a vote or for amendment, and so on through the section. With that view I am ready to vote for the amendment. Mr. CLARKE. I do not wish, in the rules which are to govern our action, to have such loose terms as this. All I want is that it shall be definite, that we may know to what the previous question will apply when it is sustained. If it means a clause, or section, or article, let it be stated. What I object to is the use of this broad term which may have a different meaning from that which the gentleman contemplates. I want the rule to contain a plain and comprehensive statement of the action of the Convention to follow the call of the previous question, if it is sustained. If we adopt this amendment, we shall find ourselves in this difficulty. Upon the second reading of a report we have a section under consideration, and the previous question is called, as we have a right to call it under this rule. Under the rule offered by the committee you have a right to call the previous question upon the pending amendments; but this proposition goes further, and says it may be called, not only upon the pending amendments but upon the special matter to which they relate. The result will be this : Under the rules reported by the committee, when a section is read and amended, there is no vote taken upon its adoption, but we proceed to the next section, and go through with them as in considering a bill. A section is read; an amendment is offered; the House acts upon it; and then the President puts the question: "Are there any more amendments to be offered to this section ?" If no further amendment is offered, the next section is read, and so on until we have finished the article; and then, for the first time, comes the vote upon the whole article, as an independent proposition, upon passing it to a third reading. But if this amendment prevails, every time we have a clause under consideration, a member can call the previous question, and call for the yeas and nays upon amendments pending, and call for the yeas and nays upon the adoption of the clause, as we go along, and so on through every clause, upon the second reading of a report. The gentlemen upon the other side of this House intimated that they wanted to protect themselves from factious opposition on the part of the minority, and reach a vote. instead of restricting the action of the minority, they will find that by this amendment they will considerably extend it. The result will be that we can have a vote upon the adoption of every specific clause, and have the yeas and nays upon it; whereas under the rules as reported by the committee, we shall have merely a vote upon amendments, as gentlemen may choose to offer them, and the main question is on the third reading when the vote is taken on the whole article. But I will only say one word in explanation of the rule for the previous question as reported by the committee. The ordinary rules governing the previous question are these, as stated in the Legislative Guide, on page 81: "The previous question shall be in this form: Shall the main question be now put?' and its effects shall be to put an end to all debate, and bring the House to a direct vote upon a motion to commit, if such motion shall have been made, and if this motion does not prevail, then upon amendments reported by a committee, if any, then upon pending amendments, and then upon the main question. On a motion for the previ ous question, and prior to the seconding of the same, a call of the House shall be in order; but after a majority shall have seconded such motion, no call shall be in order prior to a decision of the main question. "On a previous question there shall be no debate. All incidental questions of order arising after a motion is made for the previous question and pending such motion, shall be decided, whether an appeal or otherwise, without debate." In a note on page 81, it will be found that "The original intent of the previous question was, to ascertain the sense of the House, in the early stages of a subject, as to the propriety of entertaining the matter; and, if decided affirmatively, the debate went on; if decided negatively, the debate ceased, and the subject passed from before the House without motion or further question."? in legislation upon bills on their second reading, no such thing is known as a call of the previous question. Mr. HEBB. Does the gentleman state that the rules of the House of Delegates prohibit calls of the previous question upon the second reading? Mr. CLARKE. No, sir; the rules of the House of Delegates require a bill to be read to the House on three several days; and when a pending amendment is before the House, unless the House suspends the rule and passes it to a third reading, you cannot find in the rules of the House any main question before the House, as I understand it. I do not proI think the chairman of the committee pose longer to consume the time in explainhad at first embodied simply the previousing this rule, excepting to say that this is the question, as it existed under the rules of parliamentary practice, on all subjects which should come before the Convention; and that would have been the rule reported, but for the difficulty which existed in the last Convention, in regard to the indefinite prolongation of debates upon amendments offered on various propositions. We perceived that it was necessary that the Convention should change the ordinary rules of parliamentary practice in reference to the effect of the previous question, so as to stop debate upon amendments. And I suggested the propriety -for I must say, for one, although it has been intimated that the minority will prefer to prolong the time of the Convention, that I have no desire to waste the public money in any useless calls of the House on propositions simply to take up time; all that all that I desire is that when a subject is fairly before the House, we may have the opportunity plainly to express our views upon that question and offer what amendments legitimately embody our views, that they may go on record, and that every member of the House may be prepared to vote upon the question ;-I suggested, with that view, to cut off upon the second reading of a report interminable discussions, the first two sections of this rule. What would be the result were you to adopt either the proposition offered by the gentleman from Allegany or the ordinary rules of parliamentary practice? It will be found in the Legislative Guide, that it is stated that the first reading of a bill shall be for information, and the second for amendment; and that while upon its second reading the main question cannot be called, because the rules of the House of R presentatives, and our rules also, provide that the bills shall have their several readings; and if the main question were ordered you could not have the three readings on different days, as required excepting under suspension of the rules. Unless therefore we adopt some special provision by which the previous question may be called upon amendments, you cannot call the previous question at all on the second reading of a bill. As I said yesterday, object, to avoid interminable debates which might otherwise come up on the second reading of a report. It was to check such discussions that the committee made this distinction, between the main question and the previous question. It was only to distinguish them, the previous and the main question being the same, the one being called upon the second reading and the other upon the third reading; the first, the previous question, to be called upon the second reading and to bring the House to a vote upon all the propositions then before the House for a vote; but inasmuch as upon the second reading no section or article, unless some gentleman moves to amend it, is before the House for adoption, it does not bring the House to a vote upon the adoption of the article or section. Gentlemen are well aware that the only way to get rid of a section is to move to amend by striking it out, and this brings up the question whether it shall be retained. But under the amendment offered, the question is not put whether such a section shall be adopted as a section of the bill, and therefore you can never upon the second reading vote upon the main question. I have given this explanation in justice to the committee. I have no objection to the clause offered by the gentleman, if it can only be defined so as to say clause, section, or article. Mr. DANIEL. As I understand the operation of the amendment now-it was not so evident yesterday-I am inclined to vote for it. I find upon looking at the Legislative Guide, it is pretty nearly a copy of the rule there, as well as a copy of that adopted by the last Convention. So far as I have been able to look into parliamentary rules, I have never seen in any book where these rules are laid down, this question divided into the main question and the previous question. I look upon them as the same thing; the effect of the previous question being, "S all the debate stop?" That brings the question first upon the amendments and then upon the main question. I disagree with my friend from Prince George's, (Mr. Clarke,) as to the effect of |