upon the legislative department, in the Constitution under which we now live, and which we shall continue until we supersede it by another Constitution, provides

แ

A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and compel the attendance of absent members in such manner and under such penalties as each House may prescribe."

Section 19 of the same article says:

"No bill shall become a law unless it be passed in each House by a majority of the whole number of members elected, and on its final passage the yeas and nays be recorded."

reverence for Constitutions and laws as almost | Legislature. The 13th section of the article anybody, having been myself engaged for a good portion of my life in the administration of the laws; and I will obey every law, whether constitutional or statutory, so long as it is upon the books. But if there is a bad or injudicious law now, and I have the power to wipe it out, I shall most certainly try to do so. This subject resolves itself simply into this; there being neither Constitutional nor statutory prohibitions in the way, what is the rule best calculated to further the public business and the public interests? I say that, judging from the experience of this body-and we have been here only a couple of weeks-if we require the votes of a majority of all the members elected to this Convention to pass any measure, we should And in my judgement that is one of the find it an almost impossible thing to pass any wisest provisions that the Convention of measure now. If you require 49 votes out 1851 adopted. The continual alteration of of 50 upon any one subject, my word upon the laws is one of the evils of the day to it, you will require more votes than, accord-be provided against. When a law is once ing to my recollection, have been cast in the affirmative or negative upon any proposition submitted to this body. I do not remember any subject, except the one tendering our thanks to our soldiers in the field that has received 59 votes-and I know very few subjects that can receive that vote.

We are simply to make such rules as in our best judgment will most facilitate the proper transaction of the business we have before us, and believing that I can trust to the fairness, honor, and integrity of a majority of the members of this House, I do not wish to see it tethered or bound by any merely techinical rules which will only hinder the transaction of the public business.

passed and understood, it should not be changed unless the change can command the approbation of at least a majority of those elected to the Legislature. In regard to the occasional slim attendance and slim votes of the past two weeks, it is not to be supposed that such will be the case when the important business of the Convention has been prepared by the committees and submitted by them to the consideration of the house. But up to this time there has been nothing, aside from the adoption of a few orders, &c., but to meet and adjourn. And members, having important business elsewhere, have not felt compelled to be present here before any of the important business of the Convention has been reported upon by some of the committees.

Constitution; that no article ought to be adopted by us, as it could not be with the hope of meeting the approbation of the people, if it cannot command the votes of a majority of the members elected to the Convention. I hope, therefore, the Convention

the Committee.

Mr. JONES of Somerset. I agree with my friends upon the other side that this question addresses itself to every sense of expediency I think the Committee on Rules have reand justice in this Convention. It is true ported a very wise and judicious rule in relawe are bound by no Constitutional restriction to the adoption of articles of the new tions; and there is nothing in the act calling this Convention which binds us to adopt the rule reported by the committee: nor is there anything which prohibits us from adopting the amendment which has been proposed. But the question presents itself to us, as members of a Convention to frame a Con-will adopt the rule as it has been reported by stitution which is to be submitted to a vote of the people, whether a Constitution, any of the articles of which could not command in this Convention the votes of a majority of all the members elected, will be likely to receive the approbation of a majority of the people of this State. That is a consideration for us. As to the supposed inconsistency in the act calling us together, authorizing 50 members to constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, and this rule proposing that a majority of all the members elected shall be inquired to pass upon any article of the Constitution to be adopted, there is no inconsistency in that. The same provision exists in the present Constitution in regard to the

Mr. HEBB. I hope the amendment offered by my colleague (Mr. Thruston) will prevail. I do not like to cite the proceedings of the last Convention as an example to be followed here. But it will be found that the last vote taken upon the Constitution in that Convention gave but 40 votes in the affirmative out of more than 100 votes 100 votes; and nine-tenths of all the articles went into the Constitution by the votes of only a majority of the members present. Now the rule of the House of Delegates to which reference has been made is an exception to the general rule. It was made in conformity to the Constitution of the State of Maryland, which in that respect

is an exception to the ordinary rules of par- | But if the members of that Convention had liamentary practice. The Constitution of the United States says that a quorum of each House of Congress shall consist of a majority of those elected; but it does not restrict the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives from passing any law by a majority of the members present.

been bound by the same rule by which it is now proposed to bind the members of this Convention, we should have then had a much better organic law than we now have. The gentleman is in this dilemma: he must either give up the rule adopted by the last Convention which brought about this evil state of things, the present defective Constitution; or else he must adopt a rule which will guard against defects in the future.

Mr. ABBOTT. I shall vote in favor of this amendment for the simple reason that no measure adopted by this Convention can go into effect as a part of the Constitution of this State until the people shall have ratified it by their votes. But it is very different with

into effect immediately upon their passage. Therefore, if I was in the Legislature I should vote for the adoption of a rule requiring the votes of a majority of the members of the Legislature to pass any law.

Mr. CLARKE demanded the yeas and nays upon the adoption of the amendment, and they were ordered.

Mr. VALLIANT. Though a member of the committee making this report, this rule did not receive my hearty concurrence. I am glad the proposition to amend has been made, and I shall vote for the amendment. The Congress of the United States, in making rules for its government, has seen fit to adopt a rule precisely the same as Rule 43 will be if the proposed amendment be adopted And I have very great respect for the judg-acts passed by the Legislature, for they go ment of the Congress of the United States, particularly when succeeding Congresses have determined that that rule is a proper rule. It is provided in Article 5 of the Constitution of the United States, that Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, may propose amendments to this Constitution. And I suppose the Congress of the United States considers nothing of graver importance than amendments to the Constitution of the United States. And yet under the rule of Congress, similar to this 43d rule, as proposed to be amended by the gentleman from Allegany (Mr. Thruston,) a minority of the members elected to Congress may propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States. And that is purely and strictly parliamentary practice, and a practice I am in favor of; and it has been the rule of the House of Representatives for a great many years past. I remember particularly a decision under that rule in the latter part of February, 1860, when Mr. Crittenden, I think it was, proposed an amendment to the Constitution. A minority of the Senate voted in favor of it; but that minority was a majority of the members present, and so the proposition was considered as passed.

Mr. MARBURY. I do not rise to make any extended remarks upon this subject. I will merely say that the argument used by the gentleman from Alleghany county (Mr. Hebb) that a majority of the provisions of the present Constitution were adopted by the affirmative vote of less than one-half of the members elected, will recoil upon himself. The majority of the members elected to this Convention, were elected as favoring a change in the organic law of this State; they have come here for that purpose. It is presumable, therefore, that they must have seen some great defects in the organic law of the State, or they never would have favored the call of this Convention. Now it seems to me that if this rule of the last Convention was defective, it may be held to have been the cause of all the defects in the present Constitution.

The yeas and nays being then taken upon the amendment of Mr. Thruston, they resulted as follows: yeas 34, nays 41.

Yeas-Messrs. Abbott, Annan, Audoun,
Baker, Barron, Brooks, Canningham, Davis
of Washington, Ecker, Galloway, Greene,
Hatch, Hebb, Hopkins, Jones of Cecil, Keefer,
Larsh, Markey, McComas, Mullikin, Negley,
Nyman, Pugh, Robinette, Sands, Schley,
Schlosser, Scott, Sneary, Swope, Sykes,
Thruston, Valliant, Wooden-34.

Nays-Messrs. Goldsborough, President;
Belt, Berry of Baltimore county, Berry of
Prince George's, Briscoe, Brown, Carter,
Chambers, Clarke, Crawford, Cushing, Dan-
iel, Dennis, Duvall, Earle, Edelen, Gale,
Harwood, Henkle, Hoffman, Hopper, Jones
of Somerset, Kennard, King, Landsdale,
Mace, Marbury, Mitchell, Miller, Morgan,
Murray, Parker, Parran, Peter, Purnell, Rus-
sell, Smith of Carroll, Smith of Worcester,
Stockbridge, Thomas, Wickard-41.
So the amendment was not agreed to.

THE ORDER OF BUSINESS.

The PRESIDENT announced that the hour had arrived for the consideration of the special order for to-day, at one o'clock, being the report of the Committee on the Bill of Rights.

Mr. STOCKBRIDGE moved to postpone the order of the day until after the Convention had completed its action on the rules.

Mr. DANIEL moved to amend that motion so as to postpone the order of the day until to-morrow at one o'clock, as the chairman of the committee (Mr. Stirling) was absent.

Mr. BERRY of Prince George's. I think, in view of the importance of the measure, there need be no haste in taking up the special order-the Bill of Rights. It contains several

will not prevail. This report upon the Bill of Rights is the only report from a committee now before this Convention, though we have now been here over three weeks. I think that if there are any questions which have been considered, and considered for months past, they are some of the questions which arise in this report, and which these gentlemen, I know, want to debate. Now it seems to me that my friend has stated the proposition somewhat improperly. He seems to put it as if he was asking for time to discuss these questions. That is not the point to be now considered; but the point iswhen shall we begin to discuss them? The effect of his motion, should it prevail, would be to stave off the commencement of the discussion. Now if we never commence, of course, we shall never get through.

very important provisions; several changes to be made in the Constitution during the session of this Convention. I hope, there fore, it may be postponed until some day next week. I move that it be postponed and made the order of the day for this day week, at one o'clock. I would suggest some earlier day next week, but our Church Convention meets in Baltimore on Wednesday next, and several of our members are lay delegates to that Convention, and would like to attend it. I, therefore, would prefer to have it postponed until Thursday of next week and made the order of the day for that day, and hope the majority of this Convention will consent to that postponement. I think that as a matter of courtesy to the minority, the Convention should give ample time for each member of this Convention to have opportunity for full and free discussion of this sub- This report has now been made about a ject. I trust the majority of this Convention week; it has been printed, and laid upon will consent to have this subject postponed to our desks, and every member has seen it, some day next week; say to Thursday. and had time to investigate it. The propoThen every member will have an opportuni-sition which I submit is simply to delay the ty to look into and ascertain the important commencement of the debate until to-morchanges in the present Constitution proposed to be made by this report of the Committee on the Bill of Rights, and will then be prepared to come here and at least offer such suggestions to the Convention as he may deem important-as to the propriety or impropriety of the proposed changes.

In matters of this sort, except so far as the personal inconvenience of members of this Convention may be involved, I do not think that time should be regarded as material. We are making a Constitution not only for ourselves but for posterity also. We are to form an organic law which in all probability will be the organic law of the State for years to come, and in consideration of this fact I think that every member of the Convention should be allowed an opportunity to debate every measure of importance which may be proposed; particularly any important changes which may be proposed in our organic law, and should calmly and deliberately consider and discuss all those changes. If that opportunity is given to every member, then as a matter of course we shall discharge our duties here, and can return home to our constituents with the proud satisfaction of knowing that we have performed our duty, no matter how humbly that duty may have been performed. I will myself at any time consent as a matter of courtesy to the majority of this Convention to postpone any measure so vital as this to any day that may suit their convenience, and as a matter of course I shall ask that the same courtesy may be extended to the minority of this Convention. And I hope that as a matter of courtesy to the minority the majority will consent to the postponement I have proposed.

Mr DANIEL. I hope the motion of the gentleman from Prince George's (Mr. Berry)

row. As I have said on another occasion, I want gentlemen to be fully heard upon this subject. I admit that this report proposes very material alterations, affecting the interests of the people of this State, to a greater degree perhaps, than any other alterations which may be made, and I admit that we should allow fair and full time for deliberation and discussion. But that question properly comes up when we shall have commenced the discussion. If these gentlemen shall say they have not had an opportunity to be heard, they can appeal to the Convention to grant them full time to discuss the question. But are we to sit here another week and do nothing at all-to postpone the commencement of the discussion of this subject till this day week, and in the meantime sit here, day after day, looking at each other, and pass perhaps an unimportant order now and then? Not at all. I think the proper way to bring the attention of members to this subject is to begin the discussion; and when you get members listening to each other, and their attention aroused, then, and not until then, will they come properly to the investigation of the subject, and prepare themselves for intelligent action upon it. The longer you put it off the longer will members delay to prepare themselves.

I think it is time for us to get to work, for we have much work before us before we conclude our labors. After we have got to work, if gentlemen, want further time, it will then be a question of appealing to the sense of justice of the majority here to allow them full and ample time to discuss these questions. I was one of those who just now voted to require a majority of the members elected to this Convention to incorporate any provision into the Constitution, because I de

pose to amend the rule, if the majority wishes a reconsideration, and a motion to postpone, or to lay on the table, is made, it can vote that motion down. I think it leaves the question of reconsideration entirely within the power of the majority.

Mr. PUGH. I do not think the gentleman's explanation removes my difficulty at all. I suppose the Convention might vote upon motions for anything indefinitely. There may be constant motions to adjourn and we may keep voting upon them and rejecting them, But suppose some article is submitted to the Convention and is voted upon, but does not receive in its favor the votes of a majority of the members elected to the Convention, though it may receive the votes of the majority of a quorum. We may afterwards want to reconsider the vote by which that article was rejected; we may want to reconsider it several times.

Mr. CUSHING. How does my amendment deprive the Convention of the power which the gentleman desires? I do not see how it does.

If motions to reconsider must be voted upon at the time they are made, members will not make such motions unless there is some probability of carrying them. But if you strike out this clause, then a member can make a motion for reconsideration, and if he thinks he cannot carry it then, he will move to postpone it, or lay it upon the table, to be taken up when it can be carried. This clause is intended as a check upon such motions.

Mr. SANDS. I do not see how the rule is going to operate as the gentleman from Prince George's (Mr. Clarke) seems to think it will operate. Suppose a motion is made to-day to reconsider, and I know there is not a majority present in favor of that motion-could not some member, under this rule, immediately move to postpone the reconsideration until to-morrow, or until the Sergeant-atArms can be sent out to hunt up and bring in delinquents? But if no postponement is to be allowed, what will be the effect? Why, that immediately upon a motion to reconsider being made we must vote upon it, although we are in the same minority we were in the day before. I may be in error in my views, but that seems to me to be the effect of striking out this clause of this rule.

Mr. CLARKE. The gentleman from Howard (Mr. Sands) does not seem to understand my point at all. My point is this: that if you cannot move to postpone, or to lay on the table, a motion to reconsider, then members of the Convention will not take up the time of this body by motions to reconsider until they see they can probably be carried. This restriction upon the power of the Convention to postpone and to lay upon the table, will force members to ascertain the condition of the House before they bring forward motions to reconsider. If they find they cannot carry such a motion, they will not take up the time of the Convention by submitting such a motion for its consideration; but they will wait until they think it can be carried. The object of this clause is to prevent those motions being made when no practical result can be obtained.

Mr. SANDS. I would like to understand what is to be the effect of the proposed amendment. The rule now reads "and no motion for reconsideration shall be postponed or laid on the table." How is the amendment to work practically? Suppose there are but 50 members of the Convention voting at one time upon any proposed article of the Constitution, and but 48 votes are given for it; that is not enough, and the article is declared to be rejected. Afterwards we may want to reconsider, when we have sent out the Sergeant-at-Arms, (of whom we heard so much talk when we were discussing the proposition to remove to Baltimore city,) to bring in members enough to make up the requisite majority. But how are we to finish the business of the Convention unless we are at liberty to move reconsiderations whenever we find the proposed reconsideration can be made actual and effective? It is not to be supposed that 50 members of this body are going arbitrarily, and for no purpose whatever, to call for constant reconsiderations. Mr. CUSHING. The gentleman from HowThe idea of the gentleman seems to be based ard (Mr. Sands) argues against my motion to upon the supposition that the majority of strike out on the ground that the rule as it this Convention are going to busy themselves now stands gives him the power to move a by making constant motions for reconsidera- postponement of a motion to reconsider. But tion, when there is no use for such motions. the rule as it at present stands entirely preThis rule, as it stands now, it seems to me cludes that, and I move to strike out this simply permits us, if a vote upon any article clause in order, if he wants a reconsideration, or section is not satisfactory to a majority of and finds he cannot carry it at the time the this body, to reconsider that vote whenever motion to reconsider is made, to give him the such reconsideration can be made actual and power to let the motion lay over until such effective. It does seem to me that in adopt-time as it may be carried. The gentleman is ing many of these amendments we are strip- working against the giving power to himself. ping ourselves entirely of the power to do the For the first time I find the magnanimity on his business of this Convention. part of refusing power which it is proposed Mr. CLARKE. The reason for the addition to confer upon him; and for the first time of this clause to the rules was this: to place I find the gentleman of the minority worka check upon motions for reconsideration. ing with him. toticus for reconsideration.