ers. If the Convention adjourns, these committees cannot meet.

Mr. STIRLING. It is impossible to make a rule to suit the convenience of all the members, equally. Some gentlemen live in Annapolis and can go home every day until the Convention adjourns. They can go home to their meals, and to drinks between meals. If we are to reduce everybody to that standard, the Convention cannot sit two days in the week. The delegation from Baltimore happen to live near, and can go home often. That is the result of circumstances. It is an advantage we happen to have. If everybody else in the Convention is to be governed by the same mill, we shall have to take two more days to enable distant members to go home. When it is necessary for them to go, they can apply to this Convention, and get leave to go home, and still we can always have a working quorum. We may allow some to go bome; but should not allow all to go home. There is no difficulty about the gentleman from Cecil getting leave of absence for two days, either every other week. I am perfectly willing the Convention should stay here. every Saturday; but I am not willing to adjourn on any other day except Saturday. The last Legislature adjourned over Saturday, but not over Monday. The delegates from Cecil in the last House of Delegates went home and came back Monday morning; and I think from the very town where my friend lives, I know it is very inconvenient. They have to get up very early in the morning, something like 12 o'clock at night, to do it; but I know it was done last winter.

Mr. NEGLEY. The gentleman from Baltimore ought to have a little consideration for the delegations from some of the other counties. We were struggling as hard as we could struggle, some time ago, to go to Baltimore, in order that we might have some sort of chance to go home or back occasionally. I believe that gentleman used all his power and influence to prevent us from getting so much nearer home. I do think it is rather hard and unfair that he should now attempt to introduce a system of adjournment that results practically to his own benefit and the benefit of these similarly circumstanced, and entirely ignore Washington and Allegany county.

Another thing. One of the gentlemen from Baltimore city says that if we adjourn over to-day, there are some of the delegates who cannot get back by Tuesday. That will not happen to any from the western part of the State. We can go home to-morrow, and get back by Tuesday.

Mr. PUGH. The gentleman from Washingington county (Mr. Negley) has suggested about all I wished to say in regard to the matter. But the point and mode before was not exactly reached by the gentleman from

journing from Friday until Monday, when we could adjourn from Saturday until Tuesday, and be absent from here precisely the same length of time, and a large majority of the Conventiou would receive more benefit. I do not pretend to suggest a plan by which all the members should be equally benefited, but the delegation from the western and some other parts of the State would be more benefited by our absence for the same length of time.

Mr. KING. I do not see, in adjourning from Saturday until Tuesday, that any gentleman can reach home at all except the Baltimore delegation. We go to Baltimore; and from that place there is no conveyance on Sunday, so that we are confined there, and on Monday we come back. I wish some decision by which we shall either be allowed to go home, or else stay here altogether. I have no objection to staying here; but when we do go home, let us have time to get home, and to have a day there. I think we may be able to go when the committees have reported, so as to give us time to deliberate.

Mr. TODD. I am opposed to adjournments of this sort, as a general thing, and shall vote against them. It is only in view of the fact that we have nothing of pressing importance before the Convention that I feel disposed to vote in favor of an adjournment now. I feel authorized to say that we shall probably have something before us by Wednesday at the farthest upon which we can act. If we remain here we cannot act much before that time, because there will be no committee ready to report before Wednesday, in all probability, even if we should remain here. The amendment was rejected. On motion of Mr. STIRLING, The order was laid upon the table. Messrs. LANSDALE, PETER, PUGH, Marbury, MARBURY PARRAN, NEGLEY, and SCOTT asked and obtained leave of absence;

Messrs. РUGH, PARRAN and NEGLEY assigning as a reason, important business engagements, and Mr. Scort that he had nothing to to do here having finished his duties upon the committee of which he was a member.

Mr. BELT moved to reconsider the vote by which the order to adjourn over was laid upon the table.

The motion was agreed to..

The question recurred upon the original order, to adjourn until Tuesday next.

Mr. CUSHING demanded the yeas and nays, which were ordered; and the question being taken the result was-yeas 25; nays 49-as follows:

Yeas.-Messrs. Harwood, Bond, Henkle, Hatch, Daniel, Abbott, Thomas, Scott, Pugh, Turner, Parran, Todd, Carter, Noble, Johnson, Hodson, Markey, Sykes, Blackiston, Lansdale, Peter, Belt, Marbury, Morgan, Jones of Somerset.-25.

Nays.-Messrs. Goldsborough, President, Greene, Hebb, Wickard, Robinette, Miller, Stockbridge, Stirling, Cushing, Audoun, Berry of Baltimore county, Hoffman, Parker, King, Larsh, Ecker, Swope, Wooden, Earle, Smith of Dorchester, Keefer, Annan, Baker, Cunningham, Schlosser, Galloway, McComas, Hopper, Russell, Hopkins, Chambers, Hollyday, Clarke, Berry of Prince George's, Lee, Brown, Wilmer, Horsey, Mullikin, Dellinger, Nyman, Negley, Mayhugh, Davis, Snear), Smith of Worcester, Purnell, Farrow, Murray-49.

So the order was rejected.

Mr. DANIEL submitted the following order: Ordered, That when this Convention adjourns, it stands adjourned until Monday next at 12 o'clock.

Mr. CUSHING. I think the vote we have just had, has proved that this House does not desire to adjourn over to-day until any day next week. I think it is consuming the time of the Convention to go over a subject which has been acted upon. I would inquire if this is in order.

The PRESIDENT. The former proposition did not designate any particular hour, and this is a different proposition, and in order.

The yeas and nays were demanded and were ordered. The question being taken, the result was-yeas 26; nays 47-as follows:

Yeas-Messrs. Greene, Hebb, Miller, Harwood, Bond, Henkle, Hatch, Daniel, Abbott, Thomas, Turner, Parran, Carter, Noble, Smith of Dorchester, Markey. Hopkins, Sykes, Chambers, Lansdale, Peter, Belt, Marbury, Morgan, Jones of Somerset, Smith of Worcester-26.

Nays-Messrs. Goldsborough, President; Wickard, Robinette, Stockbridge, Stirling, Cushing, Audoun, Berry of Baltimore county, Hoffman, Parker, King, Larsh, Ecker, Swope, Wooden, Earle, Scott, Pugh, Todd, Johnson, Keefer, Annan, Baker, Cunningham, Schlosser, Galloway, McComas, Hopper, Russell, Blackiston, Hollyday, Clarke, Berry of Prince George's, Lee, Brown, Wilmer, Horsey, Mullikin, Dellinger, Nyman, Negley, Mayhugh, Davis, Sneary, Purnell, Farrow, Murray-47. So the order was rejected.

EMANCIPATION.

On motion of Mr. CLARKE, The Convention proceeded to the consideration of the following order submitted by him on yesterday:

Ordered, That all subjects connected with emancipation and the colored population of the State, be referred to the Committee on the Declaration of Rights

Mr. CLARKE. I stated yesterday, when I offered this order, that it was done to carry out what I supposed was the understanding of the gentleman who was the chairman of the committee on that subject, (Mr. Stirling.) When the various standing committees were appointed, several gentlemen had some doubt

where this whole subject of the colored population belonged. Yesterday, when the question was again before the Convention, it was claimed by two committees that the subject belonged partially to one and partially to the other. My sole object in offering the order was that there might be some understanding with reference to this question of what committee had the subject under consideration, so that gentlemen might know where to refer any propositions they might have to offer. I do not now desire to enter into any discussion upon the question. When it does come up, a shall meet it with a spirit of frankness, as I question that concerns all the people of the State. I will only say that after conference with the chairman of the Committee on the Declaration of Rights, I really thought that committee would properly consider the subject in all its various branches. It is a question of importance to the people whom I represent, what is to be the future of this population; whether, if free, they are to remain permanently in the State of Maryland, or whether provisions are to be made in reference to their removal, how the old and the young are to be provided for, whether they are to be turned loose on the community and the counties are to be taxed, or whether some system, like a system of apprenticeship, is to be adopted, until they arrive at a certain age. There are also various other considerations of grave importance to the citizens of my county, in reference to provisions hereafter, whatever may be done now upon this subject ;whether the colored people who have left this State and moved into the District of Columbia, the law taking effect upon them there, have a right to return, not being forbidden under the provisions of the code from returning, or whether we shall adopt some provision forbidding their return, or some provision similar to that enacted in the constitutions of various free States, entirely prohibiting this population from coming into the State.

I humbly conceive that the Committee on the Declaration of Rights have various abstruse principles of government to discuss which underlies and are the basis of all goverment, and which may take up all their time. Or if they consider those questions first which properly belong to the Committee on the Declaration of Rights, it will be late in the session before we shall have a report on this subject. My constituents, as agriculturists, feel a deep interest in this subject, to know what provision to make for their crop, for their labor; and they desire to have a committee to which these propositions may be submitted.

I would also inquire, whether, if the Committee on the Declaration of Rights should determine to provide for this subject by a provision like that commonly known as the Jefferson Ordinance, it would not leave these other questions to go to some other commit

tee which might consider and report upon them with such care as they really deserve. I think it desirable that we should have a standing committee on that subject, and I therefore move the following amendment of the original order:

Ordered, That a standing committee to consist of seven members, be appointed by the President of the Convention, to be styled " A Committee to consider and report upon the Colored Population of the State."

Mr. HEBB. I think the Committee on the Declaration of Rights, and the Legislative Committee are sufficient to take charge of the subject; and in order to test the sense of the Convention, I move that the order be laid upon the table.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. CLARKE. Gentlemen have various propositions. Are we to understand that the Committee on the Declaration of Rights and the Committee on the Legislative Department have these various branches under consideration?

Mr. STIRLING. I think I can very safely say, without arrogating anything to myself, that that is the understanding, that those two committees embrace the subject.

Mr. DANIEL. When any proposition is before the House, it will be competent to consider to what committees that proposition may properly go; and if it is proper the House may refer it to any other standing committees, or even to a new committee. I think it is best to wait until the proposition arises, and then to determine what is the most appropriate committee.

Mr. BERRY of Prince George's. I think it is desirable that the inquiry should be made as to what part of this subject is to be considered by the Legislative Committee and what part by the Committee on the Declaration of Rights; and I make that inquiry with this view : We shall in a 1 probability be receiving petitions, and we want to know to which committee it is most appropriate to refer these petitions or communications on this subject. I would therefore ask the chairmen of those two committees what branch of the subject it is contemplated shall be acted upon by each. Mr. STIRLING. I think I have sufficiently answered, so far as the question can be answered. Each one of these committees necessarily possess the right to report to this Convention any subject matter which naturally belongs to it; and the committees have also, by resolution of the Convention, the power of conferring among themselves as to their respective duties. It certainly was my understanding of the order offered by my col league, that the committees should decide this matter for themselves. I can only say to my friends from Prince George's that if they have any proposition upon the subject of emancipation to introduce to this Convention, we will, when they are offered, refer them to appropriate committees.

Mr. CLARKE. I will only say in reply to the gentleman from Baltimore city that my object has been fully accomplished. I wished to know what committee had charge of this subject, and I now understand that it is in the hands of two committees.

Mr. HEBB. I think I distinctly stated that the other day, when the gentleman offered his order, that it was in the hands of two committeęs which I named.

BASIS OF REPRESENTATION.

Mr. NEGLEY submitted the following resolution, which was read and laid over under the rule:

Resolved, That the true theory of representation in popular Governments, is that of representation according to population, except in such cases where a portion of the population is denied the exercise of the right of suffrage, in which case representation ought to be according to the population endowed with the elective franchise.

Mr. DANIEL submitted the following order: Ordered, That a copy of the Rules of the House of Delegates be furnished by the Librarian to each member of this Convention. Mr. BERRY of Baltimore county. I doubt whether the Librarian has them on hand, and it is hardly necessary to go to the expense of printing them. The Committee on Rules will report in a very few days, and then we shall have our own rules.

Mr. JONES, of Somerset. I apprehend that most of the members have copies already. They were handed round very generally on the first day of the session. upon my desk, which I have.

The order was rejected.

1 found one laid

On motion of Mr. BERRY of Baltimore county,

The Convention adjourned.

SEVENTH DAY.

SATURDAY, May 7, 1864.

The Convention met. Prayer by Rev. Mr. Owen. The roll was called, and 50 members answered to their names.

The President stated that there was nothing before the Convention to be acted upon.

OFFICIAL REPORTING.

Mr. STIRLING. There is a subject perhaps. not of great importance which I will mention. The last clause of the 3d section of the Act under which this Convention meets, is as follows:

"It shal be the duty of the Speaker of the House of Delegates, and of the President of the Senate, to provide a Reporter of the Debates and Proceedings of said Convention, who shall act until the said Convention shall provide its own officers."

I suppose the proper construction of this provision is that until the Convention shall provide its own reporter, the reporter already

TION

The above apportionment is obtained by deducting from the whole population of the State, 687,049, the population of Baltimore city, 212,418, which leaves the population of the State, exclusive of Baltimore city, 474,631. Giving to Baltimore city twelve members, (four more than Baltimore county,) this leaves sixty-eight members to be apportioned among the counties according to population, allowing no county less than two members. Dividing the population of the counties, 474,631 by 68, gives the unit of representation, in round numbers, 7,000. Then dividing the population of each county by this unit of representation, and assigning to the counties having the largest fractions one additional member until the whole reaches eighty mem¡bers, the above apportionment is obtained. On motion of Mr. CLARKE,

The resolutions, as amended, together with

the above statement, were referred to the Committee on the Basis of Representation.

Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. The gentleman from Washington county, (Mr. Negley) offered a resolution on the same day, which I suppose should have the same reference. In his absence I will take the liberty of moving that that resolution be referred to the same committee.

The Convention proceeded to the consideration of the following resolutions offered by Mr. NEGLEY on Friday last, and it was referred to the Committees on this Basis of Representation:

Resolved, That the true theory of representation in popular Governments, is that of representation according to population, except in such cases where a portion of the population is denied the exercise of the right of suffrage, in which case representation ought