place thereof the words "a majority of the The amendment was agreed to. Mr. STIRLING moved to amend by adding: "When a report or resolution is ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, it shall be actually engrossed before being read a third time, unless a majority of the members present shall otherwise order. Mr. STIRLING said: I move that amendment because it is known that it has long been the custom of the Legislature of Maryland that when a bill is ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, it is not actually engrossed, and very often it is read the third time with the amendments merely stuck on, written on separate pieces of paper. I think we shall have time enough, and that it will prevent mistakes, to have them actually copied over again if amended. If it is deemed im Mr. STIRLING. The suggestion of my friend from Cecil (Mr. Pugh) is perfectly proper; and in order to show that it may be necessary to adopt the amendment I will suggest that if it is the standing order of the day to go into Committee of the Whole, and if the House does go into Committee of the Whole, either without a vote or upon the demand of seven or nine members, and if the majority vote that the committee rise, the standing order is satisfied, and the House does not go into Committee of the Whole again. It is not the priv-portant to read anything a third time without ilege of any one or more members to demand that the House go into Committee of the Whole again. But this rule, as it stands here, has no limitation to it. It says the House are to go into Committee of the Whole not at a particular hour of the day, not once only, but at any time when required by nine members; and it may go back and forth, consuming the time of the Convention. I have seen it done in the House of Delegates time and time again. I have seen the House taken into Committee of the Whole, and taken out again, four or five times in succession. That cannot be done in Congress; when the House votes that the Committee rise, it is done for that day. Mr. BERRY of Baltimore county. The difference between the gentleman from Baltimore city (Mr. Stirling) and the gentleman from Prince George's (Mr. Clarke) I think is settled by one of the rules of the House of Representatives: The House may, at any time, by a vote of a majority of the members present, suspend the rules and orders for the purpose of going into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union." Mr. CLARKE That does not settle the point between the gentleman from Baltimore city and myself, which is this, that under the standing rule of the House, the House goes once into Committee of the Whole; and after having that privilege under the standing rule once, then the majority does it under this restriction that it is not under the standing order. So that the proposition still remains that every legislative body has the privilege of either going by standing rule, or by some form other than the vote of the majority, into a Committee of the Whole. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. STIRLING moved to amend the last clause of the same rule, by striking out the words "seven members" and inserting in waiting for it to be actually engrossed, the majority can dispense with the engrossment. Unless some rule like this is adopted, I suppose that it will not be considered necessary actually to engross the reports, but it will be omitted according to the custom in the Legislature. Mr. KENNARD suggested that the amendment should be added to the 53d rule. Mr. STIRLING withdrew the amendment. Mr. BERRY of Baltimore county submitted the following amendment: Strike out all after the word "interlined," in the sixth line, and insert "but all amendments shall, when agreed to by the committee, be duly entered by the Secretary, separate paper, noting the page and line, and, through the chairman, be so reported to the Convention, which report, resolution, or other matter, shall again be open to debate and amendment by clauses." Mr. STIRLING. I do not see why this rule is not made applicable to amendments at any time. I do not see why it should be restricted to reports in Committee of the Whole. They should not be interlined at all. The amendments should always be upon separate pieces of paper. Mr. CLARKE. Keeping the Journal of the Convention, and the Journal of the Committee of the Whole, are two very different things. When the Convention is in Committee of the Whole, it is not then acting as a Convention. If we have a report pending before the Convention, it would be just as it was referred to the Committee of the Whole, for the Committee of the Whole have no more right to change that report than any other committee. This provision is intended to keep the action of the Committee of the Whole separate from that in Convention, in order to keep a Journal of proceedings in Committee of the Whole, to be published, as provided for afterwards. Mr. STIRLING. That is all very proper. All I mean to say is that the same rule ought to be enforced in Convention, that the amendments should be on separate pieces of paper. It seems to me that the rule ought to be made applicable to them both, and cover the whole matter. Mr. BERRY of Baltimore county. The amendment is simply offered to make the rule read more smoothly. That is all. The amendment was agreed to. Rule 32d having been read, Mr. BERRY of Baltimore county asked for an explanation. Mr. KENNARD. It is taken from one of the rules of the House of Delegates. Confusion might arise from taking papers out of the Convention, and members might unintentionally make much trouble. The 16th rule of the House of Delegates reads: "No member shall take out of the House any bill, or other paper, belonging to the House, without leave of the Speaker," &c. Mr. CLARKE. No reflection was intended upon any member in adopting this rule. It was to prevent confusion. The clerk, of course, has charge of the papers, and if any member could call upon him and ask him for a paper, there was no rule under which the clerk could keep the papers. Other members might desire to see the same papers, or papers might be taken away which were pending before the Convention. Furthermore, this rule will fix the responsibility of the custody of the papers upon the clerk; and if there were no one responsible papers might be lost. Mr. KENNARD. I did not suppose that the inquiry arose from any suspicion that we intended to reflect upon any member of the Convention. Mr. BERRY of Baltimore county. I merely desired an explanation of what it meant. At the first blush, I did not see the object of the rule. I am satisfied. Rule 37th being under consideration, Mr. THOMAS moved that the Convention adjourn. The yeas and nays were ordered; and the question being taken the result was-yeas 37; nays 16-as follows: Yeas-Messrs. Greene, Hebb, Wickard, Miller, Harwood, Henkle Hatch, Abbott, Cushing, Thomas, Berry of Baltimore county, Ridgely, King, Pugh, Turner, Mitchell, Todd, Carter, Noble, Schlosser, Hopper, Hopkins, Sands, Sykes, Lansdale, Peter, Clarke, Morgan, Gale, Horsey, Negley, Mayhugh, Davis of Washington, Sneary, Smith of Worcester, Purnell, Murray-37. Nays-Messrs. Goldsborough, President; Robinette, Kennard, Stockbridge, Stirling, Parker, Ecker, Jones of Cecil, Earle, Scott, McComas, Russell, Marbury, Mullikin, Dellinger, Nyman-16. So the Convention adjourned, to meet on Wednesday next under the order adopted yesterday. THIRTEENTH DAY. WEDNESDAY, May 18th, 1864. The Convention met. Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Owen. Present at the call of the roll, the following members: Messrs. Goldsborough, President; Wickard, Miller, Harwood, Hatch, Kennard, Stockbridge, Abbott, Cushing, Thomas, Audou, Hoffman, Parker, King, Larsh, Smith of Carroll, Ecker, Wooden, Earle, Scott, Pugh, Briscoe, Parran, Carter, Schley, Markey, Cunningham, McComas, Hopper, Hopkins, Sands, Lansdale, Peter, Duvall, Marbury, Brown, Morgan, Dennis, Nyman, Davis of Washington, Smith of Worcester, Purnell, Murray-43. There being no quorum present, Mr. PURNELL said: There is no probability that there will be a quorum here to-day; and I move that the Convention adjourn. The motion was agreed to, and The Convention adjourned. FOURTEENTH DAY. THURSDAY, May 19, 1864. The Convention met at 12, M. Prayer by the Rev. H. C. McNamar. Present at the call of the roll, the following members: Messrs. Goldsborough, President; Abbott, Annon, Audoun, Baker, Barron, Belt, Berry of Baltimore county, Berry of Prince George's, Briscoe, Brooks, Brown, Carter, Chambers, Clarke, Cunningham, Cushing, Daniel, Davis of Washington, Dennis, Duvall, Earle, Ecker, Edelen, Gale, Galloway, Greene, Harwood, Hatch, Hebb, Henkle, Hoffman, Hopkins, Hopper, Jones of Cecil, Jones of Somerset, Keefer, Kennard, King, Lansdale, Larsh, Mace, Marbury, Markey, McComas, Mitchell, Miller, Morgan, Mullikin, Murray, Negley, Nyman, Parker, Parran, Peter, Pugh, Purnell, Robinette, Russell, Sands, Schley, Schlosser, Scott, Smith of Carroll, Smith of Worcester, Sneary, Stockbridge, Swope, Sykes, Thomas, Thruston, Valliant, Wickard, Wooden-74. The qualifications of the Rev. Messrs. Isaac M. Patterson, E. D. Owen, and H. C. McNamar, chaplains elect of the Convention, were presented and ordered to be filed. The PRESIDENT announced the following additions to the committees named, in accordance with an order of the Convention : On the Committee on the Basis of Representation-Messrs. Greene and Carter. On the Committee on the Legislative Department,-Messrs. Stirling and Mullikin. On the Committee on the Elective Franchise and Qualifications of Voters-Messrs. Noble and Russell. The PRESIDENT also announced the following officers, in accordance with orders of the Convention. ! Revising Clerk-John McGarigle. Pages-Caleb Parker, Charles O. Isaacs, John A. J. Metcalf and Melancthon Dodson. ADDITIONAL PAGE. Mr. GALLOWAY submitted the following: Ordered, That Harold Wingate be appointed by the President an additional page to this Convention. Mr. SANDS. I would like to enquire what necessity there is for an additional page. If there is any such necessity I will vote the additional page; if not, then I shall vote against it. I only ask for information upon the subject. Mr. GALLOWAY. From what I have seen during the sessions of this Convention, I am of the opinion that an additional page is required, for I have frequently seen members compelled to wait for some time before a page could reach them to take an order or other paper to the Secretary's table. This young man has been here during the whole session of the Convention, and has been very prompt in attending to the business of the Convention. Taking these things into consideration, I have offered this order, and hope the Convention will adopt it. Mr. BERRY of Baltimore county. The objection I have to the order as offered is that the gentleman from Harford (Mr Galloway) names the party to be appointed. I think the appointment should be left to the President. If the order is so changed, I have no doubt the gentleman can secure his object by signifying his wishes to the President. Mr. GALLOWAY. I have no objection to so modify the order, as to leave the appointment to the President, and will do so. Mr. HEBB. My objection to the order is that I do not think we need an additional page. Certainly four pages are sufficient for a body like this. The question occurred upon the order as modified, and being taken, upon a division, the order was rejected-yeas, 25; nays, 37. On motion of Mr. CUSHING, It was ordered to be entered on the Journal that Mr. Stirling, of Baltimore city, and Mr. Ridgely, of Baltimore county, are detained from their seats in the Convention by sick ness. Mr. PURNELL Submitted the following order: Ordered, That the Committee to consider and report respecting the Elective Franchise, inquire into the expediency of inserting into the Constitution a provision allowing any qualified voter, who may happen to be in any other county situated in the district in which he resides at the time of an election, the privilege of voting for any district officer; and that all such qualified electors be permitted to vote anywhere in the State for State officers. Mr. PURNELL moved that this order be re ferred to the Committee on the Elective Franchise-agreed to. Mr. VALLIANT. The Committee on Reporting and Printing have a report to make upon several subjects which have been referred to them. There are three or four orders connected with the report, which will require the action of the Convention. I do not know whether or not this is the proper time to submit the report Mr. PRESIDENT. The unfinished businesssthe report of the Committee on Rules-is now in order. RULES OF THE CONVENTION. The consideration of the Report of the Committee on Rules was resumed, and Rules 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42 were read, and no amendments offered. Rule 43, as reported was then read. Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. I would like to make an inquiry in reference to this rule. It now reads: "On the final passage of any subject matter" &c. Of course many of the articles which will be reported now by the different Committees may contain more than one subject matter. For instance, the report of the Committee on the Judiciary, it is fair to suppose, will have a provision in relation to the Court of Appeals, another for the Orphan's Court, and so on in reference to other Courts; each being a distinct subject matter. The question I wish to propound to the Committee on Rules is, whether it is intended to take the yeas and nays upon the report of any committee as a whole, or upon each of the subject matters contained in the report. Mr. KENNARD. My understanding of the matter is that the yeas and nays are to be taken upon any subject matter that comes before the Convention, whether it be an article, proposition, or resolution. It does not follow that it shall embrace an entire report. Mr. CLARKE. I will state in reference to this rule that, from the discussion in the committee, my idea was this, and I supposed, the rule would be so drawn: that reports of committees when brought in should be divided into different heads. For instance, the report of the Committee on the Judiciary would be divided into the heads of "Court of Appeals," "Circuit Court," &c., each having a separate distinct head, and each head embracing but one subject matter, the vote being taken by yeas and nays upon the adoption of each subject matter. Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. My purpose in calling attention to this matter was to have the rule so explicit that hereafter there may be no misunderstanding as to what is meant by it. The President, of course, must understand at what point in the consideration of a report the yeas and nays are to be called. We all know how it is in the case of a bill before the Legislature; the yeas and nays are always taken upon the bill as a whole; never in any other place as a mat great safeguard of our action here. Mr. THRUSTON. There must be 50 members present in the Convention to constitute a quorum. But when there is a quorum present, the majority of that quorum should be sufficient to decide whatever question may be before the Convention. And if the amendment I propose be adopted it will be necessary to go back and amend the 42d Rule in a similar manner. I mention this now, in order that those voting upon this amendment may understand that it will be necessary to amend the 42d Rule to the same effect. I trust the amendment will be adopted, because I think that when there is a quorum present the majority of that quorum should be sufficient to decide anything before this body. ter of course, but only when specially de- | portion of the rule, for I regard it as the manded in accordance with the rules. Now, if it is meant that the President shall exer. cise his discretion and say-" This part constitutes one subject matter, and the yeas and nays must now be called upon this, and then go on with the balance of the report, and then say "this constitutes another subject matter, and the yeas and nays must be called upon this,"-if that is meant, I want to have it so understood in adopting the rule. If it means that the entire article shall be considered a subject matter, and the yeas and nays be called upon that without a formal demand, then let us so understand it. In order to make the rule more explicit, I will move to amend it by striking out the words "final passage of any subject matter, and inserting the words "adoption of any article." The rule will then read-"the question on the adoption of any article shall always be determined by yeas and nays, which shall be recorded on the journal," &c. Mr. KENNARD. I will ask the gentleman from Baltimore city (Mr. Stockbridge) what will become of resolutions if his amendment should be adopted? It may sometimes be the pleasure of the Convention to call the yeas and nays upon resolutions. Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. There will be no difficulty, in that case, for it is in the power of the Convention to call the yeas and nays at any time; that is provided for in another rule. This rule simply indicates a point at which they shall be called, as a rule of the Convention. The question being taken upon the amendment of Mr. Stockbridge, it was agreed to. Mr. THRUSTON moved to further amend Rule 43 by striking out at the close, the following: แ And unless it shall thus appear that a majority of the whole number of members elected to the Convention have voted in the affirmative, the subject matter voted on shall be declared rejected." Mr. BERRY of Prince George's. I hope that amendment will not be adopted. There are 96 members elected to this Convention, 49 of whom constitute a majority of the whole Convention. The bill under which this Convention assembled provided that not less than 50 members shall be a quorum. If this portion of the rule under consideration be stricken out, then a bare majority of the members present may at any time adopt any article of the Constitution to be framed by us. I am sure it was the object of the framers of the bill under which this Convention was assembled that the Constitution to be framed by us should receive the votes of a majority of all the representatives of the people in the Convention. And I do not think we ought to depart from the rule fixed by the bill itself, a rule which is eminently just and proper. I hope this Convention will not strike out this of Mr. SANDS. I shall favor the adoption the amendment, because I think any other construction of the intention of those who framed the act under which this Convention is called is not in accordance with sound principles of construction. Those who framed that act provided expressly that it should require 50 members to transact business. The gentleman from Prince George's (Mr. Berry) states that according to his construction of the act 49 votes are required for the passage of any provision of the Constitution we may desire to adopt: that is, that the Convention should make it a rule that 49 out of 50 members shall endorse each measure before it shall be adopted by this Convention and be submitted to the people of this State for their sanction. Now I do not so understand that act. I believe that when the Legislature provided that 50 members should constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, it was clearly meant that that quorum should have all the powers necessary to render their action effective. I think the clear legal rule is that when a right is expressly and clearly conferred all powers for the execution of that right are intended to be conferred also. Is it reasonable to suppose that the Legislature in providing for this Convention intended to require that 49 votes out of 50 should be given in favor of any one subject matter, before it could become a part of the Constitution we have been called together to frame? I have heard of a twothirds rule, and in some instances of a threefourths rule; but I never before heard of a forty-nine-fiftieths rule. Now believing that is was the object of the framers of the bill under which we have been called together to give us all the powers necessary to enable us to facilitate the transaction of the public business; and believing that the construction contended for by the gentleman from Prince George's (Mr. Berry) if adopted would be a manifest hindrance of that public business, I shall vote for the amendment. Mr. BERRY of Prince George's. I think the gentleman from Howard (Mr. Sands) a little change in the laws he comes here with his proposition and presents it to the Convention, I do not think it should be therefore referred to one of our committees. We are here for the purpose of establishing the fundamental and organic law of the State; and if we are to prescribe the powers of the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of the government, go into all the details of those powers, I doubt whether we shall be through our work before the end of the year. I have no disposition to be captious when any gentleman offers a proposition for a mere inquiry, but I want this question settled; for if gentlemen are to be allowed to come here day after day and ask committees to consider the expediency of adopting propositions which properly belong to the Legislature, I think we shall be unnecessarily cumbering our journal. As to the question of expense I shall not speak of that, for it is not proper to talk about that! now. I only wish now to show my friend from Prince George's that he is wrong about this. I know very well that the Legislature has this power, and has excrcised it, and my friend the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, (Mr. Chambers) will testify that the Legislative department has always exercised that power. It would be a very strange circumstance if it were not to exercise the power to regulate the jurisdiction of the court. I do not say this to consume the time but merely to say that we establish a very bad precedent if we cumber the committees with such orders as this. While as a mem ber of a committee I would not seek to avoid the labor merely, I think we ought not to impose upon the committees the consideration of too many subjects at a time. Mr. CHAMBERS. I will merely say to my friend that I am not the chairman of any committee. Mr. BERRY of Prince George's. I still insist that I am right, and that the Orphans' Court has no such power as that which it is contemplated by the order of the gentle man from Frederick (Mr. Markey) shall be given to them. I think my friend from Calvert (Mr. Briscoe) read this article of the Constitution with very little effect in making the allegations he made as to the powers of the Orphans' Court. I will read it now and give my construction of it: "They shall have all the powers now vested in the Orphans' Courts of this State." Does this give them an additional jurisdiction? The Constitution provides that the jur isdiction that they have may be changed by the Legislature, but it does not allow the Legislature to extend their jurisdiction. The provision of the Constitution will not admit of the construction placed upon it by the gentleman from Calvert (Mr. Briscoe.) They have no such power under the law. They have no such power under the Constitution. The object of the order of the gentleman from Frederick is to extend their powers, so that when an executor shall die vested with power under a will to sell real estate, it may not be necessary to make application to Courts of Equity in order to carry out the view of the intestate. Mr. SANDS. I still entirely agree with my friend from Prince George's (Mr. Berry) in his view of the law. The order was agreed to. IMMIGRATION OF FREE NEGROES AND MULATTOES. Mr. CLARKE. Before the order is read which I propose to offer, I desire to say with reference to the remarks of the gentleman from Calvert (Mr. Briscoe) that the subject embraced in this order may be considered by some a matter of legislative power. It may embrace, to a certain extent, matter which has been heretofore a subject of legislative action. But, as I understand, it is perfectly competent for a sovereign convention to say whether they will regulate the matter by organic law or leave it in the power of the Legislature to regulate it hereafter. The present Constitution embraces matters which are sometimes left to mere legislation, as with reference to usury, a subject which might have been left to the legislative department but which it was thought proper to fix in the Constitution. So in respect to the creation of a public debt, &c. This proposition embraces a matter which has been heretofore a matter of State legislation, but which I desire shall be submitted to the consideration of the proper committee to be incorporated in the organic law. With reference to the propriety of offering such propositions, I will say that many of us are members of one or two committees, and have no opportunity of knowing what is going on in other committees at all; and although the committees are very competent to take charge of the subjects committed to them for investigation, yet it may so happen that a gentleman may have a proposition which he wishes passed upon by some other committee; and I think it not improper that he should They had the general supervision of the es- offer such a proposition and refer it to the aptates of deceased parties, and the general su-propriate committee, which will give him an pervision of the estates of minors. These opportunity of having his views passed upon. were the principal duties confided to the Or- I offer the following order: phans' Court when this Constitution was adopted. It proceeds: What were the powers vested in the Orphans' Courts of this State at the time of the adoption of the Constitution? Ordered, That the Committee on the Legislative Department be instructed to inquire "subject to such changes therein as the into the expediency of inserting the followLegislature may prescribe." ing articles in the Constitution: |